Are video game developers stagnating in the software technology used to make them

[TRex22]

Im just wondering if we are stagnating with software development in video games. I know its quicker and more standardized to use services like Unreal but is it a good or bad influence on the production of video-games?

In the old days different developers would try to create the best technology. For instance truvoice which in its case was truly inspire technology for the limited hardware of the time.

Developments like PhysX is really amazing but does it stagnate the development for graphical improvements?

Developing new software is very lengthy but is it worth the investment if new and better software technology is made which creates a better gaming experience?

Im just interested in your opinions.

 

[distortedreality]

Not really. When you look at how far engines like Unreal and Source are being pushed, and how much room for improvement and add-ons engines like Frostbite have, I don't think it's technology that is holding development back (if anything is).

If I was going to say that game development is stagnating, my sights would be set on publishers, rather than devs and the technology they use. Having said that, I don't think development is being held back at all. It may be moving at a slower pace than some other industries, but it's still moving steadily forward imo.

 

[9thRequiem]

Short answer : Not really.
Making engines is incredibly time-consuming, and thus crazy expensive.
With development costs being what they are, creating a graphics engine just isn't worth it for many games. You just get to redesign the wheel in very costly, not-as-good way.

In fact, having available engines to work from actually diversifies games - by reducing costs, developers don't need as many sales in order to make back initial investment, and therefore can make riskier games (without the publisher yanking hard on the reins and watering it down for "Mass Market Appeal")

 

[Smooth Operator]

No doubt things slow down when there is no great need to keep on pushing, but at the same time we got plenty of guys doing more with their engines every day, plus we got a heap load of engines available for free to everyone which brings the standards up much higher.

And at the end of the day I mostly can't find fault with the engines but rather how developers put shit together, stagnation in game mechanics and stories is far more concerning.

 

[Weaver]

I do see it as a negative thing. A good game programmer should at least know essential MWV matrix calculations, how to rotate the camera, and how to implement these low-level systems. In my experience, however, many of them are so used to the tools doing all this for them they're just less sharp.

What's now happened is engine implementation has become a very specialized and rare pool of knowledge that few people are experienced with. This is no doubt great for the companies that make these engines (last time I checked a dev license for Unreal Engine 3 was $750,000 WITH royalties; over 1 million without), but I don't think it's that great for the industry in total.

Unreal 3 engine games just have this plastic/shiny veneer to them. You can tell when a game uses UE3 because the traits of the engine show. It makes games seem similar. Other times like, say, in the new XCOM it can severely hamper the game, in my opinion.

Jake Solomon, lead designer of the new XCOM really wanted random levels, but the dev team told him that with the Unreal Engine it was just too difficult to do, so they just made a lot of maps instead. People who are on their second and third playthroughs are already reporting getting bored due to remembering level layouts and alien spawn points.

This is probably due to the way AI pathing in the unreal engine (I believe, anyways) must be done with pre-computed paths.

 

[TRex22]

I have also noticed UE3 and even other game engines tend to have uniform graphical styles throughout the games which utilize them. I am personally bored with the unreal engine look. A large amount of games using UE look similar to gears of war. I like more creativity and uniqueness. especially in npcs. A good example is Dishonored - which has impressive graphics but I found the character models dishevels lacking in truly diverse and unique graphical looks.

 

[DoPo]

No, it doesn't. Not really, anyway. It's software - key concept in software is Do not reinvent the wheel! Look, I'd like it if more variety and exploration of technology was there BUT and this is a big one - not everyone is qualified for it. Seriously. Besides, I don't want people who want to make a game and have a cool idea, to do everything from scratch. Every. Single. Time. Oh, you want to make a puzzle game? Write your own visualisation engine. Want to make a shooter? Better invest lots and lots of time in making skeletons, shooting mechanics, player controls and all that crap. You want a better looking game? Well, just make more time writing and testing the engine than actually creating the game.

It's the equivalent of every car company trying to come up with new designs for cars by recreating what a "car" is every single time. Get engineers and other people and start drawing this "car" thingies - how many wheels it has, why, what the shape is, what parts go inside, where do you actually put them, how do you put them there. You realise this is a terrible waste of effort, right? So exploiting known concepts helps channel that effort into something actually productive.

So if you're a developer, unless you have the time and resources to spare on writing everything from scratch (or your name is Steve and you want your game out in 6 weeks [http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Six-Weeks-Steve.aspx]) I'll be more than happy if you build on existing technology.

 

[TRex22]

No, it doesn't. Not really, anyway. It's software - key concept in software is Do not reinvent the wheel! Look, I'd like it if more variety and exploration of technology was there BUT and this is a big one - not everyone is qualified for it. Seriously. Besides, I don't want people who want to make a game and have a cool idea, to do everything from scratch. Every. Single. Time. Oh, you want to make a puzzle game? Write your own visualisation engine. Want to make a shooter? Better invest lots and lots of time in making skeletons, shooting mechanics, player controls and all that crap. You want a better looking game? Well, just make more time writing and testing the engine than actually creating the game.

It's the equivalent of every car company trying to come up with new designs for cars by recreating what a "car" is every single time. Get engineers and other people and start drawing this "car" thingies - how many wheels it has, why, what the shape is, what parts go inside, where do you actually put them, how do you put them there. You realise this is a terrible waste of effort, right? So exploiting known concepts helps channel that effort into something actually productive.

So if you're a developer, unless you have the time and resources to spare on writing everything from scratch (or your name is Steve and you want your game out in 6 weeks [http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Six-Weeks-Steve.aspx]) I'll be more than happy if you build on existing technology.

I dont mean that a new engine has to be built everytime but that there should be more variety else the creative platform of video games will become stale with usual sound and graphics.

 

[DoPo]

I dont mean that a new engine has to be built everytime but that there should be more variety else the creative platform of video games will become stale with usual sound and graphics.

No. Is it the sounds and graphics that make a game unique? The answer is "it depends" so that is still the conclusion we reach here. Crysis prides itself on how it looks and that is a big selling point for it. Other games don't go the visuals route and still contribute to games as a medium. So there, conundrum concluded - there is time and place for each.

 

[Esotera]

Fuck no, ready-made game engines drastically reduce the cost & time of development cycles. That time can be focused on making a good game, and maybe customising the engine to be really good at something like water effects or mist.

 

[Bad Jim]

The use of middleware allows developers to do things they just wouldn't be able to do on their own. Sure, they sometimes find they can't do something due to the limitations of the engine they've licensed, but I'd say these things are rarer than the things that can't be done cost effectively if you're coding everything youself.

Now I could blame publishers for stagnation, but I think the real reason is simply that all the obvious ideas have already been implemented, making it much harder to come up with something fresh. Technological advancement used to make new game genres possible, and allowed games to become immersive. Now it just makes games prettier.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

No. They just want you to think that so they can be lazy until the next generation arrives.

 

[omicron1]

To a certain extent. With a standardized engine/asset dev path, there's no reason for developers to innovate. This is, as best I can tell, the main reason we haven't seen a significant influx of procedurally-generated content (which could easily revolutionize many game designs) in games to date.

 

[TwelveBaud]

I'm going to have to go against the flow here and say that it's actually bad that we have the engines we have, not because development on engines is stagnating (we've got some really nice innovations coming up if the Tokyo Game Show is anything to go by), but because of how high consumer expectations have been raised about the visual/auditory polish of a game. This, and the price of some of the technology, has raised the bar to entry very high for most new game developers. Games like Minecraft and Prison Architect and Spelunky can continue to survive thanks to their intentionally abstract, simple design -- although Spelunky XBLA ramps up the graphics quality significantly -- but surprisingly few of my friends are willing to give Torchlight II a chance because "it just seems like a poor imitation of Diablo III; they couldn't even make it look good." Nevermind that it was by the same developers that did the first two Diablo games, and includes all the things people loved about Diablo II that were removed in the latest installment in the name of pandering to the new player; because it doesn't look as nice, it must be garbage, in their view. Perhaps, in time, a niche will develop for games based primarily on their content and story, but for right now, the "engine has it, therefore we must use/expect it" mentality pervades, one I find unhealthy for both gamers and game developers.

 

[Xanadu84]

Maybe to an extent, but really, qualities of design are infinitely more fertile ground for innovation and technology at this point. Something like, say, a new approach to moral choice would be much fresher than any change in technology I can think of.

 

[nexus]

One of the biggest issues with modern gaming is the "universal engine". But that isn't the root of the problem. The real problem is the stubborn console industry and their (failure) to push it into the next generation. Instead of getting Xbox 720 or PS4 what have you, we got "Move" and "Kinect" instead. Dumping assets into 3D caused a little stagnation as well. None of this caught on or instigated any push forward whatsoever.

There is only so much you can do with these consoles, they have been pushed to the absolute maximum, very little can be innovated. Developers do a damn fine job with it regardless, but still...

The industry only moves as far as consoles can take it, and being that these consoles have been chugging along into their 8th anniversary... well suffice to say, it's not pushed far anymore.

To put this into perspective:

Super Nintendo released for NA in 1991
Playstation released for NA in 1994 -- 3 years for a dramatic next gen shift.
Followed by Nintendo 64 in 1996
Xbox dropped in 2001
Then of course, Xbox 360 in 2005, and PS3 in 2006 -- 4 and 5 years respectively for the next dramatic shift after the original Xbox.

Even more perspective, the original NES released in 1985, and the Playstation dropped 9 years after the fact.

It's likely to be 8 or even 9 years before the next "shift". While the WiiU is coming out in 2013, it will not set the standard for games development, that will be Xbox and Sony.