Is codevelopment stunting PC games development?

[benj]

I was checking out the new Dues Ex:Invisible War gameplay video and my reaction was man this game is heavy on the action. Eventhough the original Dues EX had action, it was more of a stealth game. Then I remembered that Dues Ex:Invisible War is being made for both the PC and Xbox.

And has anyone read the interviews with Mr. Spector regarding the codevelopment of his game between the Xbox and the PC? Very discouraging...

Spector: "You know, if we had gone out of our way to do PC only, maybe we would have built bigger maps. Maybe we would have gone with higher resolution textures. Maybe. Fundamentally, does that make the game any more fun to play? I don't think it does"

Well see, but I'm praying that the game stays true to it's PC roots. From just checking out the video, there are a couple of things that I like about the new game. The interface is more streamlined. I know that some people are already objecting to the way that the weapons and augs are displayed. I'm talking about the circle that is displayed on your screen. Was it done this way because of the Xbox? I don't mind it, because the gameplay is what will matter.

[benj]

And then this happens:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/syberia2/news_6074547.html

"Microids sacrifices PC release date; opts for simultaneous, multiplatform release."

:cry:

I do understand why games are being codeveloped nowadays. It's becoming increasingly expensive to make these games and if the publishers have any hope to make their money back then codevelopment is the only answer.

[Charles]

I agree with Warren Spector. Small tech differences don't mean all that much to the final game. It's superficial at best.

[Dave Long]

Well...I don't think giving developers/artists a bigger canvas to work on (larger levels) or better art tools (higher resolution textures) are necessarily "small tech differences". I think you're way understating what's going on there.

Unless the developer is willing to really spend time with one version after the other is done (say like KotOR with Bioware), then I think there is a definite consequence to simultaneous development for multiple platforms. That's especially true if PS2 is involved since you've got to make a lot of compromises for the more powerful platforms or build a completely different engine for the PS2 to get the most out of it.

--Dave

[Charles]

"The only difference really that it's brought is that we have two different sets of textures planned, one for the PC that's higher res and one for the Xbox that's lower res." - Harvey Smith

Now people can start shutting up.

edit: the link: http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/september03/smith/

Also, this is a good bit too:

"If on the PC I can walk down the street and go into the bar without ever loading the map, but on the Xbox I have to walk down the street, load a map transition to get into the bar, but then the content is exactly the same in both cases -- [then] I'm pretty happy with that as a gamer."

[cliffski]

As someone who works within the industry I have to tell you that compromises do tend to creep in during multiplatform development. People start to design a GUI that looks good on a TV, rather than taking advantage of high res monitors, people are wary of writing code that uses large amounts of RAM, and there is also a tendency to up the minimum spec graphics wise to that of the latest console.
I think this is a bad thing, I own a PC and want to play games built for it (like EVE online). Compromising a perfectly good PC game so it works on the Playstation is a poor move, and one that can (if you arent careful) have a negative impact on the quality of the game accross all platforms.
It is expensive to make a game these days, but a lot of that is due to inefficiency and other issues. Nobody is saying that a platform port cannot reuse textures and models etc, but this is something to be considered AFTER you already have a hit on one platform.