The Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 will be maxed out by developers within an hour, Hitman: Absolution game director Tore Blystad has said.
"Every time you get a new piece of hardware, within an hour you max it out as a developer; that's just how it is," he explained. "You keep pushing it right to the max, every time a new system comes out you have to make a bucket for who is getting what from the memory and performance. Is the audio getting a lot? The animation? The A.I.? They're fighting for resources and this fight is very healthy because it will make people optimize the different elements of the game.
"Of course, it's great to get more power, but it's very quickly going to be sucked up by any kind of part of development. That's always the problem, right?"
30°
30°
0°
90°
Ad 
80°
30°
40°
20°
30°
40°
It's all about refining the game engine and being clever with what you have to work with. There will always be a better way to do *something*, that will lead to improvements.
Read the article.
But hey, how nice of you to think that you know better than a GAME DEVELOPER about the technical aspects of GAME DEVELOPMENT.
has a valid point. I mean we can look at the quality of games that launch with a platform and compare them with the ones at or near its end.
Its the same hardware from start to finish but the programming got better because they learned how to wring out more textures on screen or find tricks to compensate for any restrictions.
It has been this way for years. Just compare the graphical fidelity of a game like altered beast on the genesis to a game like rangerX. Yeah they are totally different types of games but they are made to play on the same hardware. The level of detail on rangerX and amount of scrolling is above and beyond what they thought the platform could do when it was released.
It takes time and dedication but we are seeing a development cycle where WE as gamers are getting pushy for releases instead of letting these guys finish their product. It could also be the pressure of the bigger companies to meet deadlines forcing these devs to cut corners as well.
i feel bad for the real hard workers (the programers) because they are stuck in the middle. They are being tasked with making a quality product but as cheap as they can. Which is what usually leads to improving on a formula they previously used. Refining and optimizing their code to do stuff that it hadnt before or do it better than before.
As to the next gen hardware, I think people will really be surprised when it does not represent the typical generational leap in specs but is more in line with converging more features into one box than before.
we are in a modern society of convenience and playing games on these machines has been the same for over 30 years. Consumers are wanting more than that and just by looking at the additions to the ps3 and 360 we can see they really like a platform that does more.
A bump in specs...yes, but the real difference is the more these platforms can provide as a service to the consumer.
has a valid point"
Except completely off topic and with a clear indication that he doesn't understand the terminology.
What Tore said is totally correct. They will "max out" any new systems right away. They will use all of the system's raw resources.
The point that syngamer THINKS he is making, against the GAME DEVELOPMENT EXPERT is that games can be optimized. Which wasn't Tore's point at all.
Resistance 1 didn't come anywhere near maxing out the PS3 and that was one of PS3's best looking launch titles.
http://n4g.com/news/104722/...
Motorstorm also only used about 10-20% of the machines capabiltiies.
http://www.qj.net/qjnet/pla...
Not sure what this guys on about to be honest =/ lol
Third party devs only optimize to a certain degree. So in a way he is right.
3rd party devs rely more on raw power.
Assassins creed 3 is on pc,ps3,xbox 360 & now wiiU.
Also they said they plan to support ps3 & 360 after ps4 and 720 are out.
http://www.playstationlifes...
So they will be developing for pc, ps3, 360, ps4, 720 & wiiU.
Imagine them trying to be clever and really learn everything about each piece of hardware. This would cost more time and money & probably wouldn't make them more money(keep in mind next gen development cost).
Also as far as playstation goes. They will know the hardware form day1.
Sony Boss Revealed Developers Will Help Build Next PlayStation
"Sony: Devs to help build the next PlayStation"
http://www.develop-online.n...
aslo if this is true then sony is already helping devs get the most out of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
fun fact: only Hard Drives in the world that come in 256gb are ssd's..
so Basically I am saying if the consoles are not powerful enough the 3rd party devs that have to do more than 1st party devs will hit there potential limit fast.
1st party developers will always have the best looking games since they work only with one piece of hardware.
If bethesda was only working on ps3 the ps3 version of skyrim would be less buggy I guarantee you that.
FrostByte 2 will probably give new consoles a real push imo.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
This console cycle has been so long devs are already prepared for it with new engines.
Assassin's Creed 3 > Assassin's Creed 2 > Assassin's Creed 1
It's a simple fact that game developers will always find a way to get more out of the hardware with each new game/product that release.
I get the feeling that 3rd party devs will have to do A LOT of optimization to get the most out of the next gen consoles for truly next-gen games. Also, expect multiplatform titles down-scaled from the 720 and PS4 to look like utter garbage on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Suitcase argument that has been used for years ~
The suitcase remains the same, but you can fit more depending on how well you fold the cloths.
Or something of that sort...
Looks quite nice and even when you turn on 3d it looks good
Look at any of the biggest multiplayer FPS's of past 15 years. Visuals come last.
When we get a new car we put it on spin barrels and see how fast it goes. Once we know how fast it goes we know what we're working with. However, to get to our destination it will take a few rides before we learn the fastest routes. Similarly how it takes a few games to get the best out of a console.
The article below is a great description of the limits of engine optimization:
http://n4g.com/news/989308/...
Real-time calculations are generally "faked" because the current consoles just don't have enough processing power to do that AND output at 720p 30fps, let alone 1080p 60fps and in 3D. I'm not saying next-gen will be 100% real-time calculations, but it sounds like we'll be in for a treat. Especially considering the SDKs should be far more mature this time around than they were early on for the 360 and PS3.
Ultimately, the developers will still "max out" the next-gen consoles, and returns will diminish, but to claim this will happen within the first hour is just...talking out of his ass.
I'm going to say Battlefield 3.
And I'm going to point you to this:
http://www.lazygamer.net/ps...
WTF are you even talking about? I put GTA 5 because of how big the game would be not because of the graphics.
He stated that they push the thing to breaking point and then spend the rest of the time refining everyhting so it works better. thats just how development of anything works.
"They're fighting for resources and this fight is very healthy because it will make people optimize the different elements of the game"
It's easy to max out the system, then comes optimising the performance, hence why Uncharted 1 looked better than 2 and yada yada.
Shiny paint has little to do with what people are talking about related to console capability.
GTA4, GTA5, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, Halo @4, Horizon, Watchdogs and other games like that are true technical marvels and is in the end what devs are talking about and not Silent Hill type static, linear games.
So Syngamer gets a "Well Said" for being off topic and admitting to not reading the article?
Okay, I didn't understand how this site works but now I do. got it.
Optimization is how you go from a game like Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2.
What he dev is talking about is similar to a Video Card Stability test for a PC. Something like Furmark.
What that does is test as much as possible loads on the GPU to see if it can remain stable.
Most likely developers don't mind burning out test models if that information can be used to make safer (obviously) and better running applications (optimized games). The later being made AFTER the console has been "maxed out" by the stability test.
So two unrelated topics that lead into each other, I guess...
also why doesn't hitman look better when you could have maxed out the system?
WrAiTh Sp3cTr3
that's just dumb. its the age of internet people can learn stuff. if anyone has been gaming for 15-20 years they know a lot more than you think.
simple question look at games in 2005-2006 and now and see the difference so if developers could figure out how to use the system to its max why didn't we get the best quality games at launch? and that is why wii-u won't be used to its max for atleast 2 years till everyone can understand how it works in a positive and negative way
"Black" is a good example.
Hence why dumb ass comments get so many agrees, someone could make a simple benchmark for a day one console launch and max out the hardware.....
Prime95 a simple CPU temp/stability testing piece of software less then 1MB in size maxes out any CPU on the market.
Games looking progressively better has nothing to do with maxing out hardware, maxing out hardware is simply running the hardware at full throttle so that it can't possibly give any more which has nothing to do with the visual quality of a game.
Uncharted's code never got better beyond small tweaks. It's art did. It still ran under 30 fps. Most of the time framerate was simply lowered.
:D
That's why Naughty Dog said they maxed out the PS3 with Uncharted 2...and then again with Uncharted 3. U3 was clearly a major improvement both visually and gameplay-wise. And early indications point to The Last of Us being a further improvement upon their previous work.
PC has 'better' graphics, but that doesnt mean it makes it more beautiful. You can have an hyper realistic painting but people would prefer Monet style because it's prettier, it has an unique art style and some meaning behind it. That's why Journey is nominated for Best Graphics at this years VGAs.
Of course the title isn't trying to say that they won't improve the efficiency in which they work with the available power of the console, just that when ever a developer releases a game, that is generally them maxing it out.
Steady framerate at 30fps
No screen tearing
Looks great
I'd go ahead and pick it up for PS3 if I were you. It's a pretty fun game. You play the missions however you want.
I'm sure they once did something like that in an episode of Start Trek.
I don't even think Sony were aware that the PS3 would be pushing graphics that look as good as Uncharted 3 when they first released the console. It really makes you think about how amazing the developers are with the limited hardware they have to work with.
The graphics on the PS3 keep getting better and better every year and I never had to upgrade it. It's great isn't it?
A mix of both is key. Limitations in creative materials leads to interesting and novel developments. Of course, at some point, the tech will need to evolve. That time is soon, as many PC enthusiasts have pointed out. I agree. But my isn't it amazing to see how things have developed this generation? Excited to see Last of Us and GTAV!
Somehow 6-7 years into this generation, and PC games don't look 6-7 years ahead of consoles. I mean, is BF3 PC that much better than KZ3, Halo 4 or Uncharted 3? Sure it's more stable, better perfomance, but that doesnt make it more beautiful. There is not one single PC game that blows all console games out of the water, not even one.
This is why with all it's issues the wiiu won't be great but it will do ok, dev just need time to get there head around it, sucks really when you here so much negative news, for each new console launch, yet year after year these ageing machines support finer and finer products.
I fail to see the point in reporting that they will oven a program that will run a few different tasks to show the computing power, if that's all the articles about then no surprise then, this is basic stuff, even then optimisation is key still.
I'd love to see how some of these coders would get on with an Atari 2600 or a Sinclair ZX Spectrum and get the results that some devs got on them.
Consoles have never been maxed in the first year let alone an hr.
I remember even during the NES/SNES/Genesis days games just always got better as devs got more experience with the hardware, graphical fidelity improved, and this is true of the 360/PS3 as well. Doesn't Uncharted 3 look better than Uncharted 1? Doesn't Halo 4 look better than 3?
Again, I call BS.
You have a GPU that is good in raw poly count but not so good with anti aliasing,yet you don't know this because it is too early on the machine's life cycle or you simply want to shove standard AA on the frame anyway,and that implies in reducing the amount of detail you can have per model on the scene.That ladies and gentleman is not using power that IS there...waiting...untapped.
It's all about effiency.
Engine updates are what you're talking about when graphics improvement is concerned in sequels. Devs write new codes, find new ways to push better visuals, with the same hardware and again, by using the hardware "at max". If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see any FPS drops or tearing issues at all: those show you that the hardware is struggling to handle the code.
Believe it or not, even the sh#ttiest developers max the hardware out if they're incompetent on optimizing their code.
This is what happens when developers work on new hardware, thus is why launch games don't really look all that spectacular. Now when they figure it out more down the months and years. That same game will run better, have better sound, textures, frame rates because the time they spend with it and able to "unlock" more of its potential.
I think Sony will be easier to develop for then the PS3 because of not having the Cell and change of memory designs. The next Xbox may be even easier already rumored to have the 360's hardware specs already in it including the 720 unknown specs.
Cuz if so, it's pretty lame and unnecessary.
On topic, saying something like this is misleading, and I believe intentionally so. Yes, he DOES say that optimization is key, but the "maxing out" he's talking about isn't what people mean when they say the same.
I mean, unless I'm wrong, most people mean that a FULLY WORKING GAME maxes out the system. Not having one aspect or another do it.
Like I said, I could be wrong about what most other people think of. But I know that's what I think of when that phrase is used.
And, in that case, this dev is wrong.
So I call BS on that.
I love the jetskis part - the sequels give you no vehicles to control that take properly mastering.
Even in terms of graphics that more cartoony look (which they toned down in the sequels) was sometimes very compelling such as in explosions.
Uncharted 2 was arguably Naughty Dog's highpoint of the series, for single player anyway. It's just the most rounded (and easiest) game in the series with some of the finest graphical touches that look like the work of no other developer and it doesn't go fully sadistic on you.
If you read the article he says that they 'make a bucket for who is getting what from the memory and performance' to see what is 'fighting for resources and this fight is very healthy because it will make people optimize the different elements of the game'.
I'm amazed after this many years N4G still allows articles with headings like this to be released.