Can PC "personality" be retained with cross platform development?

(fearlessfox) #1

I’m not a game dev, so humour me…

I just want to know (if anyone actually has an educated opinion on this) how difficult it would be to create a cross platform game without compromising the PC version in certain ways.

Of course you have to make some allowances for the limitations of console hardware, but how about things like:

Allowing PC players to assign buttons for /all/ actions.
Adding PC favourable menu systems instead of OBJ wheels.
Keeping certain post processing effects for the PC only and allowing deeper customisation in terms of video options.
And so on…

And, for discussion: how important do you guys consider absolute cohesion across all platforms? For instance, the OBJ wheel works best for consoles, so should the PC version have it simply so all the platforms share the exact look and feel?

Cheers.

(Stormchild) #2

I am thinking that it depends on the type of game you’re developping.

For FPS, I would say that it can be hard but some key elements can help on the PC side :

  • Complete rebinding possibilities, of course.(separating the “f” actions, run/smart… etc)
  • More customizable UI. I don’t know, based on xml files or something, maybe get inspiration from MMOs on this aspect. Sizing, positions of texts and so on…

But from the beginning of the game design, some key things like the auto-locks when doing objective or providing health/ammo etc, also should be heavily customisable or made optional. The thing is, if too much customization is possible, it is also breaking the game’s concept… nevertheless, with a bit of testing, it is easy to figure out what should be adjustable/toggable and so on.

It’s difficult to say if this is possible to implement well, because I think it can be tricky to define the PC “personality” altogether…
I might sound oldschool, but at least for me :

  • PC = possibility to tweak and customize around for extended experience and game lifetime, with basic controller in mind for design being mouse+KB (because mandatory with a PC). Multiplayer with dedicated server possibilities, lobbies etc.
  • Consoles = close to no config/customization for immediate easy fun in the sofa, local splitscreen multiplayer capabilities, possibly lobbies, basic controller in mind for design being gamecontroller (because mandatory with a console).

Bottom line, design must include a rather generic baseline for the game mechanics, but with advanced customization possibilities (maybe cvars aren’t enough anymore ?), and of course possibility for the community to do the work themselves (UI & gameplay tweaks) if the dev don’t want to bother much.

Something like that, I guess. But in the end, when you do cross-platform, you might anyway lose the opportunity to exploit the full possibilities of one of the platforms.

Another nice thing would be for consoles to have an included keyboard+mouse(or alike) type of controller as a standard.

What is the main difference between PC and consoles, for gaming ? 1) they don’t have the same standard OOTB controller, 2) The hardware is constantly evolving in the PC world, whereas the consoles do it with generation steps. 3) Mindset of gamers are different.

Actually, the first two major points shouldn’t be too hard to address. The third point is the tricky part (see first half of my post).

(Kurnuttaja) #3

Why it wont be possible? The devs are just lazy because consoles give more income I think.

(sirius89) #4

I’am sure it can but not with a tiny team that SD is.

They are not a Activision or Blizzard or something or some other HUGE developer.

With enough money a big enough team that is not lazy like a fat old cat,sure,why not.

(Insomnia80) #5

as long as we buy the console crap, there´s no need to “waste” money for good PC-versions…

(Smoochy) #6

[QUOTE=fearlessfox;322823]I’m not a game dev, so humour me…

I just want to know (if anyone actually has an educated opinion on this) how difficult it would be to create a cross platform game without compromising the PC version in certain ways.

Of course you have to make some allowances for the limitations of console hardware, but how about things like:

Allowing PC players to assign buttons for /all/ actions.
Adding PC favourable menu systems instead of OBJ wheels.
Keeping certain post processing effects for the PC only and allowing deeper customisation in terms of video options.
And so on…

And, for discussion: how important do you guys consider absolute cohesion across all platforms? For instance, the OBJ wheel works best for consoles, so should the PC version have it simply so all the platforms share the exact look and feel?

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

M$ have trialled this and the PC crows kicked consolers backsides. consolers have to have bigger hitboxes and autoaim to hit people, whereas if you use a mouse you have vastly superior aim. im all up for it. i could do with chewing up some cannon fodder :slight_smile:

(jegis) #7

It’s possible but just not viable. PCs don’t have enough money in them to justify the man hours radically reworking the game that it would take.

(Insomnia80) #8

o.O belongs to the sales, but if i remember right you need 200.000 - 250.000 sold games on most games, then you make plus. Brink had a lot of advertisement, so it´s higher, but it sells good, so they will definitely make a lot of money with the PC-version. The problem is, you make less money when you have to change the PC-version, so who cares about the com if you can drive a ferrari^^

(tokamak) #9

It shouldn’t be difficult at all, but it’s blatantly obvious that the testing of Brink was done for consoles and then those findings were applied across the board. The two platforms have different needs. Right now I enjoy brink more on a console than on the PC and as an avid PC player that can’t be right.

It’s not even reworking. It’s simply leaving out the features that make a shooter playable on a console. The PC brink is compromised by all the crutches and side wheels. All SD needs to do is take them off.

(Farlong) #10

It depends on the developer and development process.
The most common seems to be time- and costsaving provedure of developing the game for the weakest of all platforms and copy-paste it to the others. (bad porting)
Fable 3 made big changes and put a lot of work into it before releasing the game for the PC. (an example of porting done right)
And Battlefield 3 is developing for the PC and later scaling down for the console versions. (if they keep their word)

The big difference between games made for PC and games made for consoles is usually complexity. The hard definition to make with these games are the line between ‘streamlining’ and ‘dumbing down’ when its made for cross-platform. (best seen with sequels)

Steamlining may just be an evolution of games as a whole, but the parts that suffer is that games are being made easier to sell to a wider audience and not just he hardcore games.

What I think is the biggest difficulty today is finding a challenging game. The games I grew up with kicked your ass repeatedly for making mistakes and you had to get better to survive. Many games are made to be too easy and gameplay is made boring because you have nothing to really challenge you.
Regenerating health is the biggest sinner there is when it comes to this. Sure, it doesn’t punish you for making mistakes, but you never need to improve to overcome challenges. All you need to do is hide and wait for health to regenerate and you’re back in action.

L4D 1/2 is an great example here. Ramp up the difficulty to expert and health becomes the most valuable thing you have. You NEED to improve your skills to survive. The game challenges the gamers playing it. You need to learn the playstyle of your teammates, you need to learn how to counter the special infected and you need to really pay close attention to the hordes of zombies coming after you. It encourages skill and if you’re bad, your entire team suffers.

wow, this got long. o_O
And I could still go on…

All in all, complexity of games is not always having more buttons and functions.
‘Dumbing down’ a game is a synonym for ‘streamlining’ it. It all depends on the implementation of it. (not always good, not always bad)
And games that do not require skill are damned boring!

(Trane) #11

Yes, it just requires developers put in the effort to meet the additional standards PC users have.

(Farlong) #12

Yeah. This is the point I was trying to get across, but I got lost in my post somewhere…

(SockDog) #13

No. It’s not just a matter of interface tweaks as seen in Brink, although it’s clear that those things are tough to do right and completely. What is a lot harder are game play concessions that are required to make a game work on one platform compared to another. The go to example being regenerative health but you can also point to stuff like game/level size and design.

Ultimately we can accept the compromise but it’s always a compromise not the best and I don’t accept they’re one in the same.

(gr33nf4c3) #14

I consider myself a very avid PC gamer and yet I fail to see what’s so consoley and compromising about things like the objective wheel. Not attacking your point, just saying.

In fact I know a lot of people who don’t get off at pushing 20 different buttons for what is basically the same thing in different contexts - see Brink’s use key.

Of course, rebinding of every possible action is a must. I’d even go as far as demanding that on consoles as well. All in all, I’d say Brink has handled retaining of its PC heritage quite well.
In fact, I’d even go as far as to say it is actually the other way around - The console versions suffer from the fact that a big part of the crowd seems not very happy about being owned as individuals by well organized teams.