Jaffe: "I Couldn't Care Less About Next-Gen"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Jaffe: "I Couldn't Care Less About Next-Gen"

image

Industry veteran, David Jaffe's, response to the next-generation of consoles is a resounding "myeh."

"I couldn't care less about next-gen," the notoriously outspoken developer told Edge. "I started at Sony Imagesoft doing Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis games, and I went through that to PS1, then PS2, PS3, Vita... You go through the cycle enough and you realize today's 'Oh my fucking God' is tomorrow's 'Ehh, whatever'."

"Ultimately, this is all going to be yesterday's news and it's about the experience, the game," he continued. "Unless we're talking about holodecks, or AI that's so amazing it can actually write a compelling story around you procedurally based on your choices, I'm not interested."

The Twisted Metal creator later clarified his position further with a short essay. In it, he questioned whether the increased costs of producing games for more capable hardware are worth it.

"I was referring to the fact that UNLESS the next-gen of consoles are unique and fresh and bring something substantially more to the table," he wrote, "I could not care less about next-gen from a sense of WHAT the new boxes will let us- as game makers- create."

Jaffe's views make an interesting counterpoint to those of Epic Games VP, Mark Rein, who recently claimed that next-gen consoles will have to feature "bleeding edge" technology in order to compete with Apple's growing gaming presence.

Source: Edge

Permalink

Shouldn't the cost of making games kind of plateau at this point? I mean saying that it'll be more expensive because of graphics is kind of silly considering we're already getting PC games with ridiculously nice graphics on budgets comparable or cheaper than many console games.

The rest of the games, things like cinematics, gameplay mechanics, level designs, etc, wouldn't really change from current gen. Maybe they'll have to hire a couple more artists for texture work and 3D Max designs but the engines used to make these games are pretty versatile (usually) and I doubt they'll be changed a whole lot. For example Frostbite 2, Unreal Engine 3 (or 4?), CryEngine 2 are all ready for super duper high quality graphics. They're already waiting to be put to their full use...

Just my thoughts. Maybe I'm way off.

Well at least with more processing power we'll be able to have more complex AI in our games. And graphically I welcome more detailed animation work. That's why I care about the next generation of consoles, the current generation is holding those two very important things back.

It sounds like he is bitter as he hasn't been relevant this generation except for a game he left mid way through production and for his complaints, like this one.

He just likes to be "edgy".

Random guy I've never heard of doesn't care much for the next console generation? Oooh, big news. You know what Jaffe, don't really care what you think. Current gen consoles are ancient, senile, lumbering dinosaurs compared with current processing and graphics power. We're 3 years overdue at least for a new, better hardware platform.

I don't want any more Unreal 3 engine 3rd person brown shooters, TYVM. This generation is full of them, time to move on. Thanks.

Grey Carter:
Industry veteran, David Jaffe's, response to the next-generation of consoles is a resounding "myeh."

Wow, this guy cares a lot more about this than me. All I can muster is a "meh", this guy can pull out an entire other letter!

Is it me, or does Jaffe look 12 in that picture?

Wolfram23:
Shouldn't the cost of making games kind of plateau at this point? I mean saying that it'll be more expensive because of graphics is kind of silly considering we're already getting PC games with ridiculously nice graphics on budgets comparable or cheaper than many console games.

Except costs are rising and a good chunk of it goes into graphics. Maybe not in every case, but they're still trying to push it. On consoles, with static graphics cards, I would imagine more goes into optimisation, too.

Keep in mind that, while I agree there are plenty of games with "ridiculously nice" graphics and I think that's good enough, it's never going to be good enough for graphics whores of any stripe.

Prices only plateau if we at some point end the graphics arms race.

Which I really think needs to happen, but then, so does world peace.

Grey Carter:
Jaffe: "I Couldn't Care Less About Next-Gen"

Can't say I disagree with him on this one.

Looking at the WiiU for instance, consider the hardware cost alone. That's just the price of admission, right there. And each of the games will still be at least $60, if the current price point holds.

And I can't really see that games, as a whole, have gotten "better." They look nicer, sure. They run faster, most of the time. Better AI? Yeah, I guess so. But better games? Nope.

In fact, with the ability to throw in so many bells and whistles, it seems like developers are getting lazy (the big-budget guys, anyhow). You don't have to push yourself to do more with less, so you do less with more...

And the big push to hit the next console generation is from the big guys. They want the mainstream gamer to move onto new hardware so that the growing "indie" crowd doesn't have time to catch up (in terms of name recognition and customer loyalty).

I don't care about it either. And if rumors are true that next gen consoles won't allow used copies, I can see a lot of gamers switching to PC. Which is always a good thing IMO.

Why do you guys keep reporting on him? He is clearly a retard.

Well, at least they're reporting on someone saying something debate-worthy rather than someone saying something that makes me want to pluck out their eyes with a dessert fork. I don't have to add this guy to my "boycott" list, so that's something...

All I care about is game devs not havin to handicap their games because consoles have jack all for power compared to a PC. Graphics are fine as they are now, what we need to be workin on is stuff like AI not bein retarded and animations bein meh all around. For that we need a new generation of consoles because at this point we've cut every corner imaginable on our current systems to the point that there's little else they can do.

Can't help but agree. We have people demanding that the 'console tards' are holding us back while blindly ignoring the fact that this level of graphical fidelity is impossible. Time the industry and community woke up to this, methinks.

Matthew94:
It sounds like he is bitter as he hasn't been relevant this generation except for a game he left mid way through production and for his complaints, like this one.

He just likes to be "edgy".

Eh, I can kind of see where he's coming from. If I had to completely relearn the hard parts of my job every single time they released a new edition of the NBCC or whatever, I would be pretty irritated too. Especially since this next group coming (wii-U and the vita for instance) are pretty generally underwhelming to consumers and producers alike, at least according to the sales of the latter.

trollpwner:
Can't help but agree. We have people demanding that the 'console tards' are holding us back while blindly ignoring the fact that this level of graphical fidelity is impossible. Time the industry and community woke up to this, methinks.

Its not about graphics though. Everythin in games is bein held back by how horribly equipped this current console generation is. AI is awful. Animations are dodgy at best. The best lookin games out there either don't run smoothly or they cut so many corners to do it that it is not worth it (in my opinion). We absolutely need a new set of consoles if we're ever goin to see any kind of progress on those fronts.

No the guy is deade on right. A prettier brown bloom filled shooter is still a brown bloom filled shooter.

The focus needs to be on expanding what can be done with the horsepower, Not exponential increases of horsepower.

Sort of like buying a drool worthy fully loaded dodge challenger
image
yet having governers that restrict the speed to 80 mph.

Actually this drive for horsepower hurts games. You hear people say that they dont like the same game over and over. A big part of that problem is forcing devs to constantly relearn techniques and skills because just as they get adapted to using new higher horsepower engine, they have to go back to square one and start learning a new more advanced engine because fanboys have been clamoring for higher res graphics and thus spawning a premature console generation.

So of course we still have the same kind of brain dead AI we have had since the PS1 days. Devs are having to focus entirely too much on keeping up with the graphical jonses due to the more readily visible graphical nature in order to keep up with the overwhelming bulk of the consumer bases ignorant demands, instead of being allowed to focus on more abstract concepts like crafting a new generation of AI or physics

He lies.

I bet all my money that he cares even less about my chapped lips.

But then again, I don't see why he should care. Better hardware = more money required to make AAA games = fewer risks = fewer games that aren't military FPSs.

I'm not exactly filled with joy myself about the new generation...

Zachary Amaranth:
Keep in mind that, while I agree there are plenty of games with "ridiculously nice" graphics and I think that's good enough, it's never going to be good enough for graphics whores of any stripe.

I resent that. I'm a "TURN UP ALL THE THINGS" breed of graphics whore, but I think we have enough pretty games floating around.

I'm in complete agreement. We don't need better engines and prettier graphics. What we need are better AI and more originality. The people who desire top-of-the-line graphics aren't nearly as numerous as you'd think.

Looking at the responses, it seems most people here are taking his explaination at face-value as 'Your favorite console sucks because I say so.' Which is not what he is saying, clearly.

I believe he's trying to say that graphics and that sort of hardware are insignificant IF and ONLY IF the game creator has the story/gameplay writing abilities of a 3 year old with a massive head wound. Simply said, "...it's about the experience, the game," to quote him.

As for the people who can't help, but say 'who is he and why should I care?' He is the fellow behind Twisted Metal and the first God of War game.

Matthew94:
It sounds like he is bitter as he hasn't been relevant this generation except for a game he left mid way through production and for his complaints, like this one.

He just likes to be "edgy".

Actually, David Jaffe announced he was leaving Eat Sleep Play at E3 2011 and kept talking about it in January and February. He Left after the game shipped and left in early March.

He never stopped "working" or "helping" with patch updates to the online portion of Twisted Metal.

For for info please go to:

http://davidjaffe.biz/

Dastardly:
Looking at the WiiU for instance, consider the hardware cost alone. That's just the price of admission, right there. And each of the games will still be at least $60, if the current price point holds.

And I can't really see that games, as a whole, have gotten "better." They look nicer, sure. They run faster, most of the time. Better AI? Yeah, I guess so. But better games? Nope.

Nintendo are currently looking like they're going to be first to the table with their next-gen offering, which was promised to run hi definition content and significantly outprocess everything this generation has to offer, combined. If they manage it, they are going to utterly dominate the next generation. The Wii was late to the party and for close to 2 years, almost impossible to buy one.

Current processers and graphics chips have made massive leaps forward in terms of physics processing, particle effects, the usual poly-count, not to mention the paltry amount of RAM in current gen machines. I have to admit, Skyrim looked great, despite being coded for 7 year old hardware (which in IT terms is an eon). However, it could have been miles and away better given a decent (by today's standards) platform to run on.

Meh the only thing next gen will be good for is producing consoles ports that actually use the power of my pc.
I mean ports will be less shit.

I honestly can't see the next generation doing anything more than "just a bit better". And in that case it simply isn't worth my time anymore.

And current gen games already feel crippled by their monsterously bloated budgets, so my stomach turns and even the thought of a next gen.

Might be time to hang up the old controller, and call it quits.

Seems like most developers still only know how to make brown "realistic" looking games in this generation. I'd prefer to wait until they learn a few more tricks before jumping to the next gen.

I don't like the transition from generation to generation either.

To me, it is just "Oh god, I have to pay hundreds of dollars to continue getting new games" kind of deal.

Didn't Jaffe just release a crappy quality game that would have fit in in the psx era?

Matthew94:
It sounds like he is bitter as he hasn't been relevant this generation except for a game he left mid way through production and for his complaints, like this one.

He just likes to be "edgy".

That was my thinking too. Not that I don't think he has a point, but he's really just a less accomplished Peter Molyneux at this point. He's known a heck of a lot more for opening his mouth than he is for designing relevant games that people actually care about.

Wow, so many people here really don't get it...

"We need better AI in our games."

As if the problem with piss porr AI is in the consoles,it's not. The consoles we have right now are perfectly capable of COMPUTING everything just fine, the problem comes in when the budget is 50% graphics, 20% voice acting, 20% advertising and marketting, and then trace amount of actually making a decent game with strong mechanics. Gaming's golden age was a few decades back when graphics were shit but everyone was able to make a game because they weren't insanely expensive to produce. Just look at the PS1, there were so many niche and obscure titles being released on a monhtly basis there was a hidden gem around every corner.

These days it's nothing but the mega arms race for polygon count and marketting circle jerking. Gone are the days when a game could come up with its own engine and mechanics. Now we have the cookie cutter engines that are guaranteed to work while outputting the absolute best graphics ratio because using anything else that might be considered anything below *insert spec here* would be lambasted as ancient.

The "Hardcore" pc crowd thinks they're pushing video games forward but they're not, they're only creating a very harsh environment for game makers so that only the "guaranteed" sellers are actually making headway and all the smaller breeds of games people used to enjoy are dying on the wayside. The problem isn't new hardware, the problem is we've created an industry where one can make a "great" game by ticking boxes. "Does it have great graphics?", "Does it have massive market funding?", "Does it have VA by Nolan North?", If yes to all of these congratulations you're guaranteed to sell millions of them. This is NOT the kind of industry we should be encouraging people! Gah I wish I could go back in time and have the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/GameBoy back as the dominant game systems. Sure the graphics were shit but the games were amazing and different as opposed to the constant stream of shit we're being force fed these days.

KingsGambit:
Current processers and graphics chips have made massive leaps forward in terms of physics processing, particle effects, the usual poly-count, not to mention the paltry amount of RAM in current gen machines. I have to admit, Skyrim looked great, despite being coded for 7 year old hardware (which in IT terms is an eon). However, it could have been miles and away better given a decent (by today's standards) platform to run on.

This is a perfect example of what I said above. The game wouldn't have been "miles and away better." It would have been the exact same game only it'd have looked better. It'd have had the same bugs, the same shortcomings in the UI department, the same stripping of spells (NIGHTEYE AND WATERWALKING GAH RAGE) etc only the effects would have been "prettier." Stop equating "game looks" with "game quality" because that just creates more of an environment where publishers say "screw the story/mechanics/fun, give us polygons! Everyone knows graphics ARE the fun in games!"

Deshin:
The "Hardcore" pc crowd thinks they're pushing video games forward but they're not, they're only creating a very harsh environment for game makers so that only the "guaranteed" sellers are actually making headway and all the smaller breeds of games people used to enjoy are dying on the wayside. The problem isn't new hardware, the problem is we've created an industry where one can make a "great" game by ticking boxes. "Does it have great graphics?", "Does it have massive market funding?", "Does it have VA by Nolan North?", If yes to all of these congratulations you're guaranteed to sell millions of them. This is NOT the kind of industry we should be encouraging people! Gah I wish I could go back in time and have the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/GameBoy back as the dominant game systems. Sure the graphics were shit but the games were amazing and different as opposed to the constant stream of shit we're being force fed these days.

Right, dont blame PCs for something that ALL gamers have been crying for.

I can remember the times of the Megadrive and SNES. The big argument wasnt about gameplay, but grapics.
Same with the PSX, N64 and Saturn. All about the graphics, nothing about the game.

So WE ALL made this 'stream of shit', we all wanted better and better graphics. We all wanted more realistic games. Now we have them, we are all acting like spoilt brats and asking for more gameplay.

But hey, what can you do?

Cowabungaa:
Well at least with more processing power we'll be able to have more complex AI in our games. And graphically I welcome more detailed animation work. That's why I care about the next generation of consoles, the current generation is holding those two very important things back.

I don't think it's so much the current hardware holding those two aspects back, it's just that developers/publishers/whoever you want to blame aren't pushing in that certain direction because it's just easier to make everything look as pretty as it can be. It's a shame, because the hardware is only as useful as how well it's used, and often times it's not.

KingsGambit:
Random guy I've never heard of doesn't care much for the next console generation? Oooh, big news. You know what Jaffe, don't really care what you think. Current gen consoles are ancient, senile, lumbering dinosaurs compared with current processing and graphics power. We're 3 years overdue at least for a new, better hardware platform.

I don't want any more Unreal 3 engine 3rd person brown shooters, TYVM. This generation is full of them, time to move on. Thanks.

Really? You've never heard of Jaffe? He's worked on some pretty big titles like God of War n' whatnot. And who says the next generation wouldn't have an equal, if not more, number of 3rd person brown shooters? The Unreal Engine would just have a 4 at the end instead of a 3.

Just because our current technology is old doesn't mean that we should just toss it aside just for the sake of "newness". This "technology for technology's sake" is what got us in this predicament in the first place, we need to stretch our current technology to see what it can do other than how detailed it can render the mud, and few developers are really going that route.

Deshin:

The "Hardcore" pc crowd thinks they're pushing video games forward but they're not, they're only creating a very harsh environment for game makers so that only the "guaranteed" sellers are actually making headway and all the smaller breeds of games people used to enjoy are dying on the wayside.

And yet, that's only a problem on the consoles.

Adam Jensen:
I don't care about it either. And if rumors are true that next gen consoles won't allow used copies, I can see a lot of gamers switching to PC. Which is always a good thing IMO.

If people pick up used copies because they can't afford regular pricing, they're hardly going to come to a platform which (wrongly, in my opinion; although admittedly the price of entry is higher) has the perception of being more expensive. And hasn't had a used game market since the beginning of time (or maybe just after).

Deshin:

KingsGambit:
Current processers and graphics chips have made massive leaps forward in terms of physics processing, particle effects, the usual poly-count, not to mention the paltry amount of RAM in current gen machines. I have to admit, Skyrim looked great, despite being coded for 7 year old hardware (which in IT terms is an eon). However, it could have been miles and away better given a decent (by today's standards) platform to run on.

This is a perfect example of what I said above. The game wouldn't have been "miles and away better." It would have been the exact same game only it'd have looked better. It'd have had the same bugs, the same shortcomings in the UI department, the same stripping of spells (NIGHTEYE AND WATERWALKING GAH RAGE) etc only the effects would have been "prettier." Stop equating "game looks" with "game quality" because that just creates more of an environment where publishers say "screw the story/mechanics/fun, give us polygons! Everyone knows graphics ARE the fun in games!"

Better hardware doesn't just mean prettier games. Compare the size of a game environment in a N64 game to size of the game environments in a typical 360 game. Compare the number of game mechanics running at the same time between said games. Compare the physics (or lack thereof).
By your logic, Half-life 2 have been the same game if it'd been limited to 1998 hardware. HL2 came out in 2004 and HL1 in 1998. That's a 6 year difference. This console generation has already gone on for 7. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the xbox 360 has a measly 512mb of ram (which Epic games had to push for btw, it was originally going to be 256mb). How much does the average desktop have nowadays? 4-6gb?

So in your Skyrim example, Skyrim may very well NOT have been the same. They might have been able to include new game mechanics. Maybe they'd be able to eliminate the loading times when you enter buildings. Maybe they add voxel terrain allowing you to dig tunnels or deform the terrain in real-time. Maybe they could include more varieties of creatures, dungeons, etc. Maybe they can make the world even larger or more detailed. Maybe they could improve the physics. There's a ton gameplay related stuff that could be done with better hardware.

Deshin:
This is a perfect example of what I said above. The game wouldn't have been "miles and away better." It would have been the exact same game only it'd have looked better.

Not at all. What happened with Skyrim in particular, is that the devs had to find workarounds and clever ways to achieve better results with old tech. Rather than spend more time on crafting the world and player experience (which I will admit are both quite polished in this instance regardless), they had to invest time into stuff that would have been easy with current tech.

DX11 has superceded DX9 by a long way, but because of the popularity of Windows XP on PC, and the prevalence of consoles, games are being made for 2004 hardware that is long past its sell by date. Skyrim would not only have been better looking, it would have been more immersive, more engaging and with a lot more potential for creative ideas by both the devs and community.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here