The Great CT - Community Thread

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
I just woke up, and I swear it was because of a loud beep. But I don't know the source of the beep...

It's too early for my Saturday alarm. The only other thing I have that might beep is the fire alarm. I really hope it's not that... too many stairs for early morning traversal.

Or maybe there was no beep? Maybe I dreamt a beep so visceral that it startled me into consciousness.

Now I'm lying here wondering if it's safe to go back to sleep, or if the fire alarm is going to be set off at any moment.
 

Socar

Active Member
I'm really fed up of people bickering Nintendo's youtube policies here and there.

Jim Sterling and Angry Joe are recently trolling around Nintendo. The former encourages people to steal Nintendo products, the latter rants at Nintendo's youtube policies by claiming not to get 1-2 switch.

I don't really get this at all. If people are going to bash at one company about these copyright youtube stuff then why not bash other game companies for this as well?
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
It has definitely cut into my tv watching time, which is basically my job lol... I still keep up on what we watch for the podcast and such, but am falling way behind on almost everything else.... And it is fucking up my sleep.... I usually start playing somewhere around 9-10pm with the plan to stop at around 4am (already a long session) the other day I went to sleep at like 11am...and i was like dead on my feet tired, could barely keep my eyes open.... Still, it was hard to tear myself away... I got together with a friend that at like 10am...but didn't go to sleep until around 7...i want even going to play zelda that night... But before I knew it I was hunting down shrines
 

Socar

Active Member
I just don't get the new Zelda that Nintendo just made...

If you ask me, this is the least innovative thing that Nintendo has ever produced. Even if this game ended up being another linear game like Skyward Sword, people will hype it. And people will defend this here saying that its ok to copy ideas from others so long as its fun to play. But Nintendo has never done like this for a very long time even now. I don't understand why Nintendo decided to make a Witcher 3 rip off out of Zelda instead of going by to the usual Zelda games.

I don't know why Nintendo has decided to go into the direction of copying ideas from other devs when their motto is innovation. This is why I prefer Mario over Zelda because Mario games innovate more than Zelda.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the game's bad and this is definitely on my wishlist. But there hardly is anything new to offer on open ended games but the worlds themselves and the fact that Nintendo should have just made a linear Zelda game instead could have been better.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
I just don't get the new Zelda that Nintendo just made...

If you ask me, this is the least innovative thing that Nintendo has ever produced. Even if this game ended up being another linear game like Skyward Sword, people will hype it. And people will defend this here saying that its ok to copy ideas from others so long as its fun to play. But Nintendo has never done like this for a very long time even now. I don't understand why Nintendo decided to make a Witcher 3 rip off out of Zelda instead of going by to the usual Zelda games.

I don't know why Nintendo has decided to go into the direction of copying ideas from other devs when their motto is innovation. This is why I prefer Mario over Zelda because Mario games innovate more than Zelda.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the game's bad and this is definitely on my wishlist. But there hardly is anything new to offer on open ended games but the worlds themselves and the fact that Nintendo should have just made a linear Zelda game instead could have been better.
:mfacepalm:
 

Socar

Active Member
burden of proof lies with you, m8.
just peep this.

It is THE open world game.
While the vid is enjoyable as always a lot of things bother me.

1. Why Havok engine? Didn't Nintendo just said that they are reusing existing engines to reduce development costs? I mean, isn't the physics behind the Mario games enough to make this game happen instead of using Havok engine?

2. Yeah, I get that they wanted to revisit the first game's concept being non linear and try things out but if that was the case, then why did Zelda games then started becoming linear? Now for us who want Linear Zelda games, can we see that happening?

3. How is this innovative compared to other open ended games like Witcher 3?

I have a feeling that Nintendo wanting western audience to accept them as game devs would use western stuff to do so. If Nintendo isn't capable of making their own physics based custom engine, then simply relying on Microsoft is pretty much asking them to buy off Nintendo to begin with.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
While the vid is enjoyable as always a lot of things bother me.

1. Why Havok engine? Didn't Nintendo just said that they are reusing existing engines to reduce development costs? I mean, isn't the physics behind the Mario games enough to make this game happen instead of using Havok engine?

2. Yeah, I get that they wanted to revisit the first game's concept being non linear and try things out but if that was the case, then why did Zelda games then started becoming linear? Now for us who want Linear Zelda games, can we see that happening?

3. How is this innovative compared to other open ended games like Witcher 3?

I have a feeling that Nintendo wanting western audience to accept them as game devs would use western stuff to do so. If Nintendo isn't capable of making their own physics based custom engine, then simply relying on Microsoft is pretty much asking them to buy off Nintendo to begin with.
you haven't played the game yet, have you?
 
You guys.... this is too much. First of all, I haven't read ANY of the Zelda travel journal thread because I don't want to see any spoilers. Then I had to stop reading the BotW official thread because that was starting to tread into slight spoiler territory with things like place names and such. Now I can't even open the community thread without seeing EVERY LAST MOTHERF*CKER IN THE ROOM talking about Zelda! I'm trying to wait patiently but dammit I want my sleep pattern to be interrupted and my life to be ruined by this all-consuming titan. I want my chance to forget to pick my daughter up from school... when can I forget to pick my daughter up from school, guys?? WHEN CAN I FORGET TO PICK MY DAUGHTER UP FROM SCHOOOOOOOOL???

*cries*
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
No...but looking at the footage, how is it not the same as witcher 3?
Socar, I'm going to be completely honest with you, and you better listen. When it comes to video games, you cannot get the same impression just watching videos, or reading up what others are saying about it. You MUST play the game in order to understand. This isn't like watching a movie, or reading a book. You have to interact with it.

What I'm saying this: play the damn game, and THEN draw your own conclusions.

For the sake of things, and I'm only inquiring here, have you played any of the Witcher games, including 3?
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
No...but looking at the footage, how is it not the same as witcher 3?
in concept it is an open world game, yes, but the first zelda was open world too, so it isn't as if they are copying that.... there IS influence from other open world games, yes, but most, if not all, of those games also took influence from zelda.... the thing that makes breath of the wild feel so good though isn't the basic open world premise and ideas that we have seen implemented before but rather the way in which Nintendo has executed on this project... the tiny details, the character personality, the vibrancy of the world, the small but brilliant and massively numerous puzzles

how is breath of the wold different from Witcher?
1. charm
2. puzzles
3. quality of the world itself

those are but a few examples but they cannot be ignored...

zelda took a long existing format it had become beholden to and crushed it like an ant under the boot of a giant... and yet somehow breath of the wild feels more zelda than ever before... everything you do in the game has that Nintendo polish and attention to detail, like EVERYTHING, it introduces a crap load of small new ideas.. like using fire to create updrafts, and having rain hinder exploration while simultaneously rewarding collection...

I said it before, and I'll say it again, zelda with its sheer scope and somehow, remarkably impeccable attention to detail at every inch of the game, just might be the greatest video game ever made...

not greatest zelda, not greatest adventure game, not greatest open world game, not greatest nintendo game... GREATEST GAME!

going by trailers and footage I was excited for the game, actually playing it is a revelation

so play it before asking more stupid questions about why it is good, find out for yourself

find out how every time you see a mountain you want to climb it.. if only so you can see another secret off in the distance to pursue.... and there NEVER isn't something that catches your attention...

the biggest problem with open world games is that the worlds seem to be barren, and rather uninteresting, it is more about the scale and the feelign of scope than any actual density of quality... monolithsofts games (xenoblade) handled that much better by making the world itself a wonder to explore and admire... zelda take all of that and then fills it with an absolutely insane density of stuff to do... I mean seriously... it isn't just the size of the world... the amount of stuff to do in this game is shockingly massive, and yet everything you do feels thoroughly thought out and artfully created... all of the common complaints about open world games are GONE in breath of the wild, not lessened, GONE... and on top of that it seems to have added things that nobody was expecting or anticipating

I just can't say enough how dense, rich, and full this game is...

and yet somehow they even have EASILY the best towns, characters, and perhaps story (still early in) of any zelda before as well... that ahs typically been the weakness of 3d zeldas... the towns feel lifeless, the characters are mostly uninteresting (Midna being a huge shining exception), and you just genuinely feel like you are different from the people in the game.. their is a clear line between them as NPCs and you as a player of the game... not so here.... in breath of the wild I feel like a citizen of hyrule, I talk to and laugh with the children, I flirt with the women, I share war stories with the men, it is all just ALIVE!

honestly that was my biggest fear with breath of the wild, I love rpgs.. so I want to feel like somebody in that world one of the guys at the bar... zelda has never been that good at this feeling, and a huge open world made me fear this was pretty much stripped entirely from the game... but it is the opposite...

and again.... THAT, is what is mindblowing... the sheer lack of compromise... we are trained to expect that because we get 1 great thing, we have to endure 1 shitty thing.... breath of the wild isn't perfect, there are a few problems (the camera sucks for example)... but I never feel like 1 great thing compromises another.. it is ALL there and it is ALL GREAT

I have over 60 screenshots of the game, and I routinely go through and delete redundants... I have so many because there are constantly moments that imapct me and I feel a burning need to save it....

I spent half an hour watching a f'n thunderstorm, snapping tons of picks, trying to convey what it was like in a single image... which just didn't work... the way the lightning rolls is just REAL.... the fact that you can use that to your advantage is crazy too... if you wear metal in a storm you will attract lightning strikes, I won a battle once by removing all my metal, knowing my opnonant hadn't and just avoiding him until he was struck by lightning... another time I used the magnet power to hover a rusty sword in front of me whichw as often struck by lightning, also often when the sword was floating very close to an enemy, who would quickly get fried... then their was a puzzle where you had to sue metal pieces to complete an electrical circuit, I got sick of trying to solve it, so I just used metal items in my inventory to jury rig the solution... and it worked... it always works... if you can think of an alternative like "ha, it would be funny if I could do this" and then try it... like 9 out of 10 times it works
 

Socar

Active Member
Ok sure, its like that but that still doesn't answer the question of why Nintendo went to linear games like a Link to the Past then or Link's Awakening? And why Havok? I mean Sonic Generations used Havok and the physics there half sucked. Is Nintendo trying to say that they cannot make a good custom physics engine anymore?

Now for every time Botw sells well, they have to pay royalties to Nintendo. So is that even profitable?
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Ok sure, its like that but that still doesn't answer the question of why Nintendo went to linear games like a Link to the Past then or Link's Awakening? And why Havok? I mean Sonic Generations used Havok and the physics there half sucked. Is Nintendo trying to say that they cannot make a good custom physics engine anymore?

Now for every time Botw sells well, they have to pay royalties to Nintendo. So is that even profitable?
...if your enjoyment of a game is 100% linked to the tools used to make it, you've kinda missed the point of enjoying a game, amigo. Who cares what physics engine is used? Who cares what game engine is used? Is it fun? That's what matters. And for what it's worth, the physics in BotW are fantastic.

Why go to a more linear design? Why not? You meld the design around the ideas you have and the hardware that makes it possible. There is no rule that you have to explore one avenue of game design to the exclusion of all others in perpetuity.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Ok sure, its like that but that still doesn't answer the question of why Nintendo went to linear games like a Link to the Past then or Link's Awakening? And why Havok? I mean Sonic Generations used Havok and the physics there half sucked. Is Nintendo trying to say that they cannot make a good custom physics engine anymore?

Now for every time Botw sells well, they have to pay royalties to Nintendo. So is that even profitable?
Why Havok? It's a damn good physics engine in its own right. Hell, Half-Life 2 used Havok back in 2004, and there are still some games that don't match the quality of the physics in the game world.

Nintendo have also used Havok off and on for years, and it is honestly easier to use that than to simply custom make their own engine for one game. Let's say Nintendo did make their own custom physics engine. Ok, how long would that have taken, and at what cost? All the extra man-hours to create this thing, would likely be offset by simply going with a tried and true engine already built. Nintendo obviously made some custom changes of their own, but I can guarantee you that going Havok over a custom-made engine was cost-effective for Nintendo.

And if I'm quite honest, I think you're making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I just don't get the new Zelda that Nintendo just made...

If you ask me, this is the least innovative thing that Nintendo has ever produced. Even if this game ended up being another linear game like Skyward Sword, people will hype it. And people will defend this here saying that its ok to copy ideas from others so long as its fun to play. But Nintendo has never done like this for a very long time even now. I don't understand why Nintendo decided to make a Witcher 3 rip off out of Zelda instead of going by to the usual Zelda games.

I don't know why Nintendo has decided to go into the direction of copying ideas from other devs when their motto is innovation. This is why I prefer Mario over Zelda because Mario games innovate more than Zelda.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the game's bad and this is definitely on my wishlist. But there hardly is anything new to offer on open ended games but the worlds themselves and the fact that Nintendo should have just made a linear Zelda game instead could have been better.
What? Tell me a lot of things that Zelda now did that the likes of Witcher 3 didn't do.
Your questions aren't unusual. People ask this a lot, but the point is that Zelda is very well polished and the world is very interactive. I'm not playing the game either, but I'm watching the videos and I've got two close friends who are playing and the people here o TNE.

It's a open world game and Witcher 3 has an open world game. That's it, but Zelda's still superior in many features, including the world itself and it's characters.

Witcher 3 is also an extraordinary game as well as some other open world games and yes, it's not innovative to make an open world game. But Zelda isn't just an open world Zelda, it's in fact an open world Zelda with one of the most well crafted interactive worlds Nintendo has ever done.

Why open world, you ask. But people have been asking "why not open world?" for a long time. This Zelda is the dream coming true for most of the Zelda fanbase.
 

MANGANian

Megalomaniacal Robo-Zombie
The Legend of Zelda gameplay looks a bit different than The Witcher 3 to me. I must admit though that both games began the same way by just dropping you into an overworld and leaving you to your own devices.

There eventually goes any reason to pick a PS4. It's likely that the PS4 will just get things first, and after a few months or years, select exclusives will get dumped onto Playstation Now. Seems like both Microsoft and Sony are edging away from a console platform in favour of online services such as Netflix.

I've returned to Fire Emblem: Awakening again and got reminded why I like videogames. I got stuck on a mission because I was trying my best to get Yen'Fay to join, but nothing was working. And anytime Say'ri approached him, they talk for a bit and then she critical kill him every damn time. I tried giving her something weaker to see if he would eventually give up and join, but she just keeps up with the critical hits and I eventually gave up and murdered him.

He had such a good design too.
 
Last edited:

Socar

Active Member
Mario Galaxy used Havok
Source for this? Oh and Metroid Prime Trilogy as well?

Why Havok? It's a damn good physics engine in its own right. Hell, Half-Life 2 used Havok back in 2004, and there are still some games that don't match the quality of the physics in the game world.

Nintendo have also used Havok off and on for years, and it is honestly easier to use that than to simply custom make their own engine for one game. Let's say Nintendo did make their own custom physics engine. Ok, how long would that have taken, and at what cost? All the extra man-hours to create this thing, would likely be offset by simply going with a tried and true engine already built. Nintendo obviously made some custom changes of their own, but I can guarantee you that going Havok over a custom-made engine was cost-effective for Nintendo.

And if I'm quite honest, I think you're making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.
But those games have to make profit as like I said, Nintendo has to pay royalties for every time the Havok engine is used and now that Microsoft has bought Havok, its only a matter of time that people will now start ranting that Microsoft ought to buy Nintendo at some point because technically, this makes Nintendo less independent because of their lack of using their own custom engines.

Development wise, a custom engine is always the best option simply because you can reuse the engine as much as you want without any additional pay and this reduces development costs. You will also learn the limits to the vast imagination. If a game cannot be done in a third party engine, then what's the point of that engine? A custome engine is the best way to make games especially for a first party developer because only the console maker can know the limits of a console's power.

Isn't that what Shinya Takahashi once stated at a Q&A meeting? That they are aiming to reuse game engines of their own to reduce development cost?

Now I'm all the more worried that Nintendo is trying to get influenced into the western side of things instead of being a traditional Japanese developer and doing things their own way. Next thing you guys will tell me that the next Kirby game needs to have proper physics because Kirby game physics are nonsensical? Are you guys now saying that Zelda should be an open world series forever and ever?

I'm fine if Nintendo wants to use third party engines but doing that excessively instead of doing their own custom engines then begs the question, why Nintendo can't go third party in that case?
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Source for this? Oh and Metroid Prime Trilogy as well?



But those games have to make profit as like I said, Nintendo has to pay royalties for every time the Havok engine is used and now that Microsoft has bought Havok, its only a matter of time that people will now start ranting that Microsoft ought to buy Nintendo at some point because technically, this makes Nintendo less independent because of their lack of using their own custom engines.

Development wise, a custom engine is always the best option simply because you can reuse the engine as much as you want without any additional pay and this reduces development costs. You will also learn the limits to the vast imagination. If a game cannot be done in a third party engine, then what's the point of that engine? A custome engine is the best way to make games especially for a first party developer because only the console maker can know the limits of a console's power.

Isn't that what Shinya Takahashi once stated at a Q&A meeting? That they are aiming to reuse game engines of their own to reduce development cost?

Now I'm all the more worried that Nintendo is trying to get influenced into the western side of things instead of being a traditional Japanese developer and doing things their own way. Next thing you guys will tell me that the next Kirby game needs to have proper physics because Kirby game physics are nonsensical? Are you guys now saying that Zelda should be an open world series forever and ever?

I'm fine if Nintendo wants to use third party engines but doing that excessively instead of doing their own custom engines then begs the question, why Nintendo can't go third party in that case?
Custom engines are certainly NOT the best option in all cases. A complete game engine, from the ground up, is a lot of work. So there are two important considerations for Nintendo.

(1) Is it more cost effective to use 3rd party tools than to develop in-house?
(2) Are there additional benefits to fostering integration of 3rd party toolsets?


On the first point, it probably is more cost effective to use 3rd party tools. Do we know for certain that they are paying royalties, btw? Most often these products have lump-sum licensing options. Last I knew, Havok would run in the neighbourhood of $120k.

So that's the equivalent of two underpaid guys working for a year. But it comes with the benefit of proven usage in large games and a whole staff dedicated to fixing any problems you might encounter. This opposed to hoping your 2 underpaid guys know what they're doing.

To the second point, and I hinted at this in the previous paragraph, there is enormous value in using external engines and middleware. Now, when a 3rd party dev looks at Switch and asks the question "is it going to be hard to get Havok running on this thing?" they have a clear example they can look to that tells them that it is entirely doable.

Reinventing wheels all the time is no fun, it is expensive, and it makes other developers look at you with suspicion and distrust.
 

Socar

Active Member
Custom engines are certainly NOT the best option in all cases. A complete game engine, from the ground up, is a lot of work. So there are two important considerations for Nintendo.

(1) Is it more cost effective to use 3rd party tools than to develop in-house?
(2) Are there additional benefits to fostering integration of 3rd party toolsets?


On the first point, it probably is more cost effective to use 3rd party tools. Do we know for certain that they are paying royalties, btw? Most often these products have lump-sum licensing options. Last I knew, Havok would run in the neighbourhood of $120k.

So that's the equivalent of two underpaid guys working for a year. But it comes with the benefit of proven usage in large games and a whole staff dedicated to fixing any problems you might encounter. This opposed to hoping your 2 underpaid guys know what they're doing.

To the second point, and I hinted at this in the previous paragraph, there is enormous value in using external engines and middleware. Now, when a 3rd party dev looks at Switch and asks the question "is it going to be hard to get Havok running on this thing?" they have a clear example they can look to that tells them that it is entirely doable.

Reinventing wheels all the time is no fun, it is expensive, and it makes other developers look at you with suspicion and distrust.
If custom engines are not the best option, then why did Nintendo had to force themselves to use custom engines for all their systems in the first place? The DS and 3DS sold well so what's your excuse in that?

If they are able to make a lot of games using their own custom engines, then why now shift to third party engines all of a sudden?

Are you saying that Nintendo should instead keep using third party engines? Because if that's the case, then its like I mentioned earlier, what is their reason of not going third party then? All of this is starting to make me think that people want Nintendo to stop innovation which is what Nintendo is known for. Innovation.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
If custom engines are not the best option, then why did Nintendo had to force themselves to use custom engines for all their systems in the first place?
They didn't *have* to. If they wanted to put in the time and effort to get something else running for them, they could have done so. I suspect there are 2 main reasons they've chosen not to.

One is because, in the past, most of the games that Nintendo has made have been technically quite simple. That's not a slight at Nintendo or the games they've made. From a technical standpoint most of them have not been particularly ambitious. As time goes on and games become more complex, it becomes less and less feasible to roll your own all the time.

A 2D platforming game engine is pretty simple (I've done reasonable ones from scratch in as little as a weekend before). The underlying fundamentals for OoT, and Mario 64 aren't really much harder - there is a bit more math involved but there are very little dynamic interactions. Once you get up to the level of BotW, however, there is a lot going on - it demands a high performance, very stable physics engine. Spheroid collision detection isn't going to cut it any more, so it's time to turn to the people who have devoted their lives to making just that.

The second reason is that Nintendo has had non-standard hardware for a long time. Third party engines are designed for portability, but they aren't designed to run on the weird architecture you cook up in your basement. If we look at the gamecube, for example, while Xbox was rocking a programmable shader pipeline leveraging direct x, the gamecube had its own, somewhat analogous but very different texture environment unit. You could do similar things with it, but it would only ever work on the Gamecube, because no one else had a TEV unit. Meanwhile, the Xbox was using technologies that were already emerging in the Windows PC world. Long story short, if you wanted programmable shaders on GameCube (and therefore Wii) you had to do something custom.

The DS and 3DS sold well so what's your excuse in that?
Quite simply by saying that none of the games Nintendo made for either system were complex enough to warrant something like Havok Physics, I suppose. Or at least, that would be the case that Nintendo engineers would make - assuming none use 3rd party tools (which I don't know).

If they are able to make a lot of games using their own custom engines, then why now shift to third party engines all of a sudden?
Again, it's not really "all of a sudden". Both "Smash Bros Brawl", and "Game and Wario" both used Havok, and so apparently did Galaxy. But the reasons would almost certainly be:

- more standardized hardware
- more technically complex games
- bigger drive to attract 3rd parties

Are you saying that Nintendo should instead keep using third party engines?
Where it makes sense to do so, yes.

Because if that's the case, then its like I mentioned earlier, what is their reason of not going third party then? All of this is starting to make me think that people want Nintendo to stop innovation which is what Nintendo is known for. Innovation.
A game engine is not a game. Would you prefer they construct their own offices, manufacture their own lightbulbs, build their own development computers, and so on?

An engine is a tool. Did you know that with an Unreal 4 license, you have full access to the source code and can make any modifications you want? Using 3rd party tools in no way implies a restriction on creativity, nor does it imply that they should go third party. (By the way, you haven't really presented an argument for why you think it would, you just said it feels that way.)


And then, of course, there is the fact that Havok isn't a game engine.

Would you prefer Nintendo to spend 2 years trying to make a physics engine that is as good as Havok (and in all likelihood failing), or would you like them to spend those 2 years finding fun and clever things to do with a physics engine they bought off the shelf?

I'd much rather they focus on making a fun game.
 

Socar

Active Member
They didn't *have* to. If they wanted to put in the time and effort to get something else running for them, they could have done so. I suspect there are 2 main reasons they've chosen not to.


Where it makes sense to do so, yes.

(By the way, you haven't really presented an argument for why you think it would, you just said it feels that way.)



I'd much rather they focus on making a fun game.
Then by that logic, why not use Unity to make the next Mario games, Kirby games and even the next possible Metroid game forever then? Its cheaper than a custom engine and it has no limits.

As for the argument on why I feel custom is better than said third engines, because third party engines don't have limits and if they don't have limits, more things can be added which can either worsen the performance or can have some game design flaws that make you wonder what the whole point of using that engine was to begin with.

Let's look at La-mulana and compare it with the sequel. The sequel is using Unity which for a 2D game does not have limits so they can add as much as they want. The remake custom engine had technical limits that devs had to work hard on and then this came into discussion with the game design fellows whether such a thing is worth implementing for the game or not.

Remember how Yoshi was originally going to appear in Super Mario Bros but wasn't possible due to technical limits? Now if the game was going to me made on an engine with no such limits, there is less thinking involved in the design process and just an easy to do thing.

If Super Mario Odyssey is going to use a third party engine and that game does not have Toad playable in the game, what reason would the developers come up with other than "Not feeling that he doesn't fit in this game" excuse? Because again, there aren't technical limits in adding characters anymore and time limits isn't really a problem anymore either.

What reason do you need programmers to program games when softwares like Game Maker Studio can easily make games for you as long as you can learn how to do stuff? I can just copy paste whatever tutorial logic I want to make a platform game like Mario right?

My worry here is that Nintendo is bound to do more design flaws than make less of them which will hinder their games becoming top quality.
 
Last edited:

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Then by that logic, why not use Unity to make the next Mario games, Kirby games and even the next possible Metroid game forever then? Its cheaper than a custom engine and it has no limits.

As for the argument on why I feel custom is better than said third engines, because third party engines don't have limits and if they don't have limits, more things can be added which can either worsen the performance or can have some game design flaws that make you wonder what the whole point of using that engine was to begin with.

Let's look at La-mulana and compare it with the sequel. The sequel is using Unity which for a 2D game does not have limits so they can add as much as they want. The remake custom engine had technical limits that devs had to work hard on and then this came into discussion with the game design fellows whether such a thing is worth implementing for the game or not.

Remember how Yoshi was originally going to appear in Super Mario Bros but wasn't possible due to technical limits? Now if the game was going to me made on an engine with no such limits, there is less thinking involved in the design process and just an easy to do thing.

If Super Mario Odyssey is going to use a third party engine and that game does not have Toad playable in the game, what reason would the developers come up with other than "Not feeling that he doesn't fit in this game" excuse? Because again, there aren't technical limits in adding characters anymore and time limits isn't really a problem anymore either.

What reason do you need programmers to program games when softwares like Game Maker Studio can easily make games for you as long as you can learn how to do stuff? I can just copy paste whatever tutorial logic I want to make a platform game like Mario right?
So... the reason you don't like engines is... they're too good?

Maybe this is a shock to you, but Game Maker doesn't make a game for you - those "things" you have to learn how to do include "making a game". Game Maker makes it a bit easier than if you did it all from scratch (but actually not much easier if you know what you're doing).

Also, there definitely still are technical limits! For example, you cannot make Breath of the Wild in Game Maker - it couldn't be done. In UE4? Yea, for sure - but you are going to need programmers to do it. I thought you knew better than this: there is no magic "make game button".

This is a really bizarre argument you are making. Surely, we want the freedom to create exactly what we want to create; for artistic vision to not be impeded by the pesky trivialities of reality. The reason Toad wouldn't be a playable character would be because it didn't fit the design.

Do you think there was any technical reason why toad couldn't be playable in every Mario game ever made? Is there any technical reason why Toad isn't a playable character in Call of Duty or Halo or Portal or Metroid Prime? No, it's entirely possible in all cases - but it was decided against for mostly obvious reasons.

I feel like you have ever this unrealistic vision of a mythical 3rd party engine that Miyamoto politely asks for a new Mario game from, and out comes a Mario game. That's not at all the case, game engines are just tools to make the technical parts of the job easier so that more time can be spent making a good game.

If a design team can't constrain themselves without technical limits, that's a failure of the design team not the engineering team. The design team shouldn't care what tools the engineering team uses so long as they can execute the design vision.
 

Socar

Active Member
So... the reason you don't like engines is... they're too good?

Maybe this is a shock to you, but Game Maker doesn't make a game for you - those "things" you have to learn how to do include "making a game". Game Maker makes it a bit easier than if you did it all from scratch (but actually not much easier if you know what you're doing).

Also, there definitely still are technical limits! For example, you cannot make Breath of the Wild in Game Maker - it couldn't be done. In UE4? Yea, for sure - but you are going to need programmers to do it. I thought you knew better than this: there is no magic "make game button".

This is a really bizarre argument you are making. Surely, we want the freedom to create exactly what we want to create; for artistic vision to not be impeded by the pesky trivialities of reality. The reason Toad wouldn't be a playable character would be because it didn't fit the design.

Do you think there was any technical reason why toad couldn't be playable in every Mario game ever made? Is there any technical reason why Toad isn't a playable character in Call of Duty or Halo or Portal or Metroid Prime? No, it's entirely possible in all cases - but it was decided against for mostly obvious reasons.

I feel like you have ever this unrealistic vision of a mythical 3rd party engine that Miyamoto politely asks for a new Mario game from, and out comes a Mario game. That's not at all the case, game engines are just tools to make the technical parts of the job easier so that more time can be spent making a good game.

If a design team can't constrain themselves without technical limits, that's a failure of the design team not the engineering team. The design team shouldn't care what tools the engineering team uses so long as they can execute the design vision.
Game Maker as of now isn't capable of doing Botw but it sure as hell is capable of doing Terraria.

Also, why are you suddenly against the notion that custom engines are bad? It gives a better control over the game development rather than the developers learning how to use third party engines and such.
 

Socar

Active Member
Ok I'll just forget about this whole engine thing like its nothing so long as Nintendo doesn't lose that innovation charm since the Switch is as innovative as every other system they made out there and that Super Mario Odyssey is far more innovative than Botw.

So I'm not going to bother about custom engines and all of that...atleast for now.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Game Maker as of now isn't capable of doing Botw but it sure as hell is capable of doing Terraria.

Also, why are you suddenly against the notion that custom engines are bad? It gives a better control over the game development rather than the developers learning how to use third party engines and such.
game engines can be modified to do all of the custom things you want

just because you bought a drill doesn't mean you can't make your own drill bits to fit it

as dark said, they are just tools...

lets say I want to make a meal... I could pick up raw ingredients at a grocery store, I could pick up boxed meals at a grocery store, I could go to the farms direct, or I could even be the farm and grow my crops....

maybe I grow my own herbs, but I grab my meat from a local butcher I trust, meanwhile I get stuff like salt and rice off the shelf at a grocery store, because it doesn't really matter...

the stuff I need to be super fresh is, the stuff that is too much for me to handle on my own (within reason) I can outsource to trusted sources (like a local butcher).... and the stuff that it really doesn't make any difference on I can just buy off the shelf at a grocery store

then it is still up to ME to cook all of that.... my recipe, or my execution of an existing recipe

in this example, nintendo is a world class chef with a small private farm growing its most important ingredients .... but do they really need to butcher their own meat when Havoc the butcher is down the street and does great work? of course not... that is just silly...

maybe they have butchered their own meat in the past... they do have chickens for eggs, so they could butcher those for meat as well... but now they want to use pork, and beef, and venison.... do they need to hire on their own personal hunters and butchers? do they need to purchase more land and hire more farmers to handle cows and pigs....... Havoc the butcher does pigs and cows.... there is a local hunter they like that can score them venison, and for now they cans till farm their own eggs and chicken....

does ANY of that affect the actual cooking they do? no... maybe if they butcher wasn't capable, but he is

does having an outside butcher mean they can't season the meat the way they like to... no.... the butcher only determines the meat source and cut... and if the meat source and cut do not match the ones the chef needs, he can go elsewhere and find one that does... or in the worst case scenario expands his own operations to do that in house.

using outside sources doesn't change his recipees, and the end result is exactly the same as it would be if they handled it themselves... maybe better, as their own in house butcher isn't as experienced...

yes.. some "chefs" will just go to the grocery store and grab a hamburger helper and a pound of hamburger meat.... then maybe add some extra cheese or sour screm that isn't called for on the box... but that isn't nintendo... and just ebcause nintendo shops at the same store, doesn't mean nintendo makes the same things
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Ok I'll just forget about this whole engine thing like its nothing so long as Nintendo doesn't lose that innovation charm since the Switch is as innovative as every other system they made out there and that Super Mario Odyssey is far more innovative than Botw.

So I'm not going to bother about custom engines and all of that...atleast for now.
so where is mario Odyssey innovative where botw is not?

mario looks good, but I don't see anything that changes the game.. the most innovative thing is maybe the hat, but i have seen similar mechanics before, so how is that mroe innovative than, for example, creating updrafts by burning fields?
 
Inb4 "Mario Odyssey developed with Unity" :^)
Also as for Havok in Galaxy, its in the opening credits of the game.
Also I was waiting for the food analogies to come in. Had seen a bunch of it yesterday pertaining to weapon durability, and it isnt a real argument until the situations relationship to italian restaurants is brought up:p
 

Socar

Active Member
Inb4 "Mario Odyssey developed with Unity" :^)
Also as for Havok in Galaxy, its in the opening credits of the game.
Also I was waiting for the food analogies to come in. Had seen a bunch of it yesterday pertaining to weapon durability, and it isnt a real argument until the situations relationship to italian restaurants is brought up:p

Where?
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Also, and maybe I'm completely off the mark here, but what exactly is the point you're trying to make here, Socar? Whether it is Nintendo's own custom engines (which btw are derived from 3rd party engines from years ago), or a purpose built 3rd party engine (physics, graphics, or otherwise) with all the tools needed, that's all they really are: tools.

And like Darkdepths said, Nintendo very likely has a lump-sum deal with Havok, given their current relationship (and let's face it, we only know as much as we are told. There are lots that happen behind closed doors that we do not know), so as I mentioned earlier, the costs for that deal are likely factored into Nintendo's operating budget rather than the budget for one game.
 
Top