EA's young Discusses Nintendo Revolution Development

[DiemetriX]

Summary:

In a recent interview, EA's Neil Young has commented on developing titles for Nintendo's next-generation console. He notes that one of the biggest challenges when developing for the Revolution is that it is not HD.

 

Quote:

 

Young, who is the former President of Origin Systems and also helped build early ARG Majestic, before helping to head up EA's Lord Of The Rings titles and moving down to oversee EA's Los Angeles studio, from where he revealed the next-gen Medal Of Honor title at a keynote for last year's Tokyo Game Show, is notable for speaking his mind on game design related topics as well as high-level business trends.

 

Talking to Gamasutra on his own thoughts for the Revolution, Young commented: One of the challenges for the Revolution is that it's not HD. If you think about RTS games, one element is the control scheme, but the other is the distance from the TV screen when you're playing a console game versus a PC game.

 

He continued, referencing the soon-to-be-released console SKU of the EALA-produced real time strategy title: One of the reasons Battle for Middle Earth II works so well on the [Xbox] 360 is the controller, but the other reason is the HD - you can see everything, frankly, as well or better as you can when you're [as close as you would be to a PC].

 

Young concluded of his own personal Revolution impressions: So I think there are some questions there, and the other issue is performance. The hardware performance is sort of current gen plus, versus the 10x or 20x multiple that you get on next-gen. I mean, EA is building stuff for it, but I kind of prefer the DS. It makes the most sense to me.

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

Bwahahahahahaha

[Ginger_Chris]

The reason EA doesn't like it, is because they can't curn out a current gen game with HD graphics and call it a sequel. Almost all of their games for the 360 are sequels that have the same or even less features than the last game, but with pretty graphics. They might even have to but in some innovation into their games. Who am i kidding, they'll end up porting currrent gen titles with a badly implimented support for the FHC.

[Hellfire]

Challenge everythig (sort of)

[Innovance]

So what does that mean for 360 and PS3 owners that lack HD ready Tv's???

 

He has a fair point admitedly but we have not yet reached the limits of 480p personally i would bet that 360 and PS3 are also incapable of reaching those limits.

 

Again we have magical numbers with no referance point. I am not going to assume that his comments are representative of EA as a whole, but it seems like there are developers out there proagramming from within the escape pods.

 

I guess that the natural conclusion to draw is that there were no rts games on any consoles this gen, due to the limitations of SD.

 

And hold on is he trying to imply that the 360 controller is as capable as the revcon for use in RTS games??? does it have secret as yet unrevealed functionality?

[ndreamer]

So what does that mean for 360 and PS3 owners that lack HD ready Tv's???

exacly and theres not going to be a very high percentage for awile yet epecialy when most people keep there tv's until they die and the averge persons not going to pay a few K to get a new tv with a higher resolution.

 

One of the reasons Battle for Middle Earth II works so well on the [Xbox] 360 is the controller

now that alone tell's me his talking shit, controlers are absolutly hopeless at RTS games they are way to slow and not very accurate and just becouse it's the 360 controler doesnt make it any beater.

 

but i do agree the DS is defintly the best current/nextgen console to do rts games regarless of the resolution or 3d hardware.

[Librarian]

well I played C&C on the old N64.. ofcourse i would prefer a mouse but I got used to the controller and it worked just fine.. and the "poor no HD" output didn't bother med one bit

[ultrajamie]

EA doesn;t like it because they will have to innovate to succeed on the rev. simple as that. The rev was made as an answer to their production line trash.

 

Anyway... last E3 they pledged to support 360 with 20-odd games. only fight night has been 'OK' out of all of them.

 

is anyone really bothered?

[Nintenchris]

EA doesn;t like it because they will have to innovate to succeed on the rev. simple as that. The rev was made as an answer to their production line trash.

 

Anyway... last E3 they pledged to support 360 with 20-odd games. only fight night has been 'OK' out of all of them.

 

is anyone really bothered?

 

Exactly... Ea just wanna port all there games from one console too the next with the minumum amount of effort, time or money... where the Rev needs them to be making games from the ground up to make an original game.

 

In other words there just pissed off that they cant port 360/PS3 games too the Rev with little effort.

[Owen]

Well i don't want unoriginal games on my Revolution please. Either EA shut-up and use the Revolutions innovative controls and stop going on about HD or don't bother at all....

 

I love FNR3 for example, the graphics rock, but it's on the 360 where graphics come first this isn't the case with the Revolution.

[system_error]

EA has some AAA titles aswell. Battle for Middle Earth 2, Battlefield 2 are really great games (I know they are developed by other studios) and not every EA game is "crap".

 

I understand his point of view and I believe it is a very valid one because 2/3 of the next-gen consoles support HD resolution and those combined are a much bigger market. I personally can forgive the lack of HD and I am quite sure the rule is that most gamers don't have a HD TV set yet. Concerning developing costs I don't think that HD needs more time, money, whatever because it is just a higher resolution. More money is needed to port a game from HD to SD and in that case the Revolution has a slight disadvantage. More power means that developers don't have to worry to make a decent looking game because they don't need the extra time to really get every last advantage out of the hardware.

[Guest Jordan]

Fight Night Round 3 is quite good, because its HUD-less you have to see how damaged your opponent is by the way they walk around, their breathing, punch speed and the amount of cuts on their face.

[Retro_Link]

One of the challenges for the Revolution is that it's not HD. If you think about RTS games, one element is the control scheme, but the other is the distance from the TV screen when you're playing a console game versus a PC game.

Yeah, because EA are all about the RTS,

 

Those comments are SO stupid!!

EA aren't going to make games that only support HD, if they did, their games would sell next to nothing! and EA is all about mass market sales;

Sure they'll include HD support for 360 and PS3, but then the Rev just won't use that!

[DiemetriX]

Fight Night Round 3 is quite good, because its HUD-less you have to see how damaged your opponent is by the way they walk around, their breathing, punch speed and the amount of cuts on their face.

 

I eventually turned on the HUD. Much easier to play strategic.

[Hellfire]

Seriously, this guy just saying that as an excuse, because they're too lazy to make games use the fhc.

[DCK]

OMG yeh EA sucks teh suxxors so n00b

 

Seriously, he has a point. How would you feel as a game developer that you would have to build up your ports from the ground? This is exactly why the Revolution specs concern me - they may not be good enough for ports, and that means less 3rd party support.

[Towers]

Personally I'm not majorly worried as I don't actually play many EA games although I would of bought Fight Night 3 had it appeared on the PC or Cube. However I would still like to see them support Rev

[Nintendork]

I boycotted them after that sacking 200 staff/pay rise for Tiger Woods thing.

Doesn't bother me really.. I only really liked SSX and Burnout.

 

Both series' as pointed out have become somewhat dated and repetitive.

[Pit-Jr]

EA's presence is important to any console. They single-handedly supplied the GC with realistic sports sims after Sega stopped supporting GC with its 2k line. Theyre games arent perfect but they do fill voids in the game library. And i wouldnt get worked by this guy's comments. EA and Nintendo always have a healthy relationship. All this guy is saying is that its a challenge because its different

[21st century cowboy]

"He continued, referencing the soon-to-be-released console SKU of the EALA-produced real time strategy title: One of the reasons Battle for Middle Earth II works so well on the [Xbox] 360 is the controller, but the other reason is the HD - you can see everything, frankly, as well or better as you can when you're [as close as you would be to a PC]."

 

So let me get this write, he's saying if your thinking of getting Battle for Middle Earth II and haven't got a HDTv, don't bother getting it. This HDTv topic frustrates me so much.

[DCK]

Again, he has a point on that. 800x480 doesn't offer enough detail for an RTS like Battle for Middle-Earth. So yeah, if you don't have an HDTV you shouldn't get it.

 

A Revolution RTS would have to be specifically made for it to work around the lack of detail, like celshade it or something.

[Hellfire]

Again, he has a point on that. 800x480 doesn't offer enough detail for an RTS like Battle for Middle-Earth. So yeah, if you don't have an HDTV you shouldn't get it.

 

A Revolution RTS would have to be specifically made for it to work around the lack of detail, like celshade it or something.

Not meaning to pick on you or anything, I suppose I'm looking like I'm just defending Nintendo, but that's bullshit. I always played games without HD and never had any problem. HD is completly unnecessary to play. I've played more RTS than I can count on an old 15'' monitor in 640*480 and 800*600 without having any problems. What about people without HD tvs? They suddenly can't play RTS? Bull.

[xernobyl]

It's a really big chalenge to code for a non HD platform! You have like to change to vars from 720 to 1280 and 576 to 800! IT'S... SO... HARD!!!

What about if EA only develops for ms and sony? That would rock... no one really likes EA anyway.

 

EDIT: I haven't noticed:

The thing has a lack of DETAIL and they want to make it CEL-SHADED? Where in the hell does a flat colour have more detail than a texture?????????????????

[system_error]

It's a really big chalenge to code for a non HD platform! You have like to change to vars from 720 to 1280 and 576 to 800! IT'S... SO... HARD!!!

What about if EA only develops for ms and sony? That would rock... no one really likes EA anyway.

 

I am sorry but you seem to know next to nothing about either hardware or software.

 

Old RTS games could be played easily in 640 x 480 on a PC with a 15" monitor but nowadays the level of detail is a lot higher, you have more units onscreen and for those things a higher resolution is quite neccessary. I don't say HD is the best thing ever happend but it has its advantages and of course the price as a very big disadvantage.

 

On a normal TV with SD resolution and 50+ units on the screen I guess it is quite hard to actually select and move units with the Revolution controller when you don't sit in front of your TV like I do.

[DCK]

@ Hellfire:

 

RTS creator Rick Goodman (Empire Earth, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World) has mentioned this before. A normal TV offers too few pixels for detailed RTS games, and even those pixels become more vague on most TV screens. You could play older RTS games on screens like that, as they aren't very detailed, but have you looked at BfME2 screens? It needs a good resolution to do it justice. I'm not saying it will be unplayable, but the HD makes a lot of difference. The HD is one of the major reasons this game does appear on a home console, for the first time anyone has tried to port an RTS in five years.

 

I'm basing myself on quotes I read before, so I could be very wrong. system_error's with me though, and he knows his stuff.