Square-Enix announces their new game engine

[Simond]

So FFXIII (and however many PS3 versions/spinoffs there are of it) is using S-E's bespoke 'White Engine' which was designed with the PS3's, um, 'hardware idiosyncrasies' in mind.
All new next gen development after that will be using a licensed engine - specifically the Unreal 3 engine. Which works well on the 360.

Interesting.

[Riggswolfe]

I wonder if this signals an intention to develop for 360?

[Margalis]

S-E and Japanese companies in general are falling behind the tech curve a bit. I was talking to my friend who works at S-E about this. Most of the research and academic papers are in English, as are the leading edge docs from places like NVidia. So it is hard for Japanese companies to keep up. And working on consoles they are a bit behind the leading edge to begin with, for example you can find seasoned console devs who know nothing about scripting languages.

Japanese companies have always had a better sense of artistic style and gameplay, but US companies have had a tech edge for a long while, although they don't always put that tech to good use. So I see this as a very good fit. Japan has relied on artistry and brute force for too long.

[Miasma]

Wow, I find that astonishing news.  I'd have thought Square would be the very last to give up on writing their own engines, let alone outsourcing it to an American company.  It makes good sense though, software for these new platforms is so complicated that pieces are going to have to be divvied up.

Has there always been a version of the Unreal 3 Engine tweaked for the PS3 or is Epic going to have to create it?

[Riggswolfe]

Japanese companies have always had a better sense of artistic style and gameplay, but US companies have had a tech edge for a long while, although they don't always put that tech to good use. So I see this as a very good fit. Japan has relied on artistry and brute force for too long.

For the most part I'd agree with this, though I find some artistic choices questionable. (The emo shemale lead characters in RPGs lately being a big one.) Sounds like if we could get some joint ventures going, Japanese storytelling, gameplay and artistic direction married with U.S. tech things could get interesting. Which this sounds like a step in that direction.

I'd also love to see something crazy like a Bioware/Square coproduced RPG. Though it'd probably be schizophrenic. Another note, it seems that the Japanese are loath to update gameplay. For instance, most RPGs have been using turn-based combat since the '80's now? So while their gameplay is good, it is also somewhat stale. Perhaps this belongs in that frontpage topic though.

[stray]

So many UE3 games coming out, it's crazy.

It's a good year for Epic (and IBM for that matter).

Has there always been a version of the Unreal 3 Engine tweaked for the PS3 or is Epic going to have to create it?

No, Sony had partnered with them way back when the PS3 was still being fleshed out.

[schild]

There is absolutely no question that this points to 360 development.

[Trippy]

There is absolutely no question that this points to 360 development.

Don't forget about the PC!

[schild]

I didnt. But Square sure as shit did.

[Trippy]

I didnt. But Square sure as shit did.

And yet there is now hope, however small, for the future.

[Fabricated]

Ugh, the Unreal 3 engine. Great, now I can look forward to Square games featuring blinding amounts of bloom.

[Stephen Zepp]

Ugh, the Unreal 3 engine. Great, now I can look forward to Square games featuring blinding amounts of bloom.

And the performance of Vanguard. /duck

[schild]

Performance of Vanguard my ass.

[Fabricated]

Hey guys, I got an exclusive screenshot of the Chrono Trigger re-release for the Xbox Arcade.



TOTALLY NEXT GEN BABY, THIS SUCKER'S READY FOR THE 360.

[Margalis]

LOL nice one. Could use some more AA though.

[Trippy]

Ugh, the Unreal 3 engine. Great, now I can look forward to Square games featuring blinding amounts of bloom.

And the performance of Vanguard. /duck

Vanguard uses Unreal Engine 2.

[Stephen Zepp]

Ugh, the Unreal 3 engine. Great, now I can look forward to Square games featuring blinding amounts of bloom.

And the performance of Vanguard. /duck

Vanguard uses Unreal Engine 2.

Commonly, engines don't increase in performance much generation to generation--in fact, new capabilities and effects tend to expect better hardware than the last version.

I'm not making a statement here about Unreal 2 vs Unreal 3...what I am doing however is foreboding the possibility of a vanguard-esque issue of content/feature use vs performance.

[stray]

Unreal (I don't care which version) seems like one of the most stabile and forgiving high quality engines around. Don't blame UE for Vanguard. UE2 has held up fine in both single player and multiplayer settings for a few years now, and still looks better than half the things out there that look far worse.

[Trippy]

Ugh, the Unreal 3 engine. Great, now I can look forward to Square games featuring blinding amounts of bloom.

And the performance of Vanguard. /duck

Vanguard uses Unreal Engine 2.

Commonly, engines don't increase in performance much generation to generation--in fact, new capabilities and effects tend to expect better hardware than the last version.

I'm not making a statement here about Unreal 2 vs Unreal 3...what I am doing however is foreboding the possibility of a vanguard-esque issue of content/feature use vs performance.

Square has always done a good job of balancing "teh shiney" with good frame rates in their console RPGs. I don't see that changing as they switch to UE3.

[stray]

Besides all that, no way anyone is going to push the current console generation to it's limits anytime soon (since that's what Square will be targeting). That's the kind of thing that happens late in their lifetime (i.e. Shadows of the Colossus, RE4, Metal Gear Solid).

[Stephen Zepp]

Unreal (I don't care which version) seems like one of the most stabile and forgiving high quality engines around. Don't blame UE for Vanguard. UE2 has held up fine in both single player and multiplayer settings for a few years now, and still looks better than half the things out there that look far worse.

I say again, I'm not dogging UE here!! It is an outstanding engine, and has incredible capability.

[stray]

My bad. Was a little confusing. :)

[EDIT]

Anyhow, back to the 360: I'm having a hard time thinking this would open up FF to the XBox. Something like Kingdom Hearts seems like a real possibility though.

[schild]

There were some rumors about FFXIII being multiplatform in a couple communities about 5-6 months ago. I never posted about it because it was never substantiated. If the PS3 growth remains this small, it may be possible that the PS3 release is simply a few months before the 360 one.

[Calantus]

Well... if square go away from being Playstation exclusive I'd have to take a long think about whether I'd want a PS3 at all. Right now I'm sticking with the PS2 until the dust settles (and I'm spending too much money on other entertainment at the moment), but always intended to buy a PS3 at the least just to get at the exclusives. Unless there's a lot of quirky japanese games exclusive to the PS3 I might just get a X360 and be done with it.

Of course I will probably still get more quirky japanese games than before just because the market opens up to me when I'm not stuck on the PAL releases, so I'll likely get one anyway.

[stray]

Get both :)

I think Sony will definitely have more Japanese titles, if that's your thing, but both will have exclusives worth playing in the end. It'd be hard to deny either one.

That being said, I also think Sony has a knack for encouraging or supporting new ideas and talent (whether that be in the first or third party sense). Even when they lost some good things to MS in the last generation, they always seemed to find something new to fill the gap. Something that made you happy that you still had a PS2. To make a (poor) analogy, it's like they have the best sporting scouts in the league, while MS has the biggest pool of cash, but without the keenest sense on how to use it (until later, when they see the success on the other team).

The good things that do originate on the XBox still seem to be pretty conservative. Tapping the guys in Mistwalker to form up and make Blue Dragon, or the Mega Man guys to oversee Capcom titles are almost no brainers. Obviously they should go after proven game designers like that. Same goes for the PC centric developers they've tapped. It's only natural that they do so.

But do they have an eye for recognizing something less obvious? To this day, the most creative thing I've seen them do is the first thing they did: Get Bungie. Besides that, it's like they're playing catchup as far as encouraging new game developers and ideas go (not that that's necessarily bad though). Instead of creating a Gran Turismo, they copy it. Instead of finding the next GTA, Guitar Hero, or MGS, they settle on ports (and then when that's supposedly the death knell for Sony, Sony manages to promote something else). Instead of being creative with the third person action genre, they get people to mimic God of War and DMC with laughable attempts like Bullet Witch. Instead of creating the next great American RPG (hello Shadowrun?), they make magic based Counterstrike clones.

On the flipside, I'm a little weary of Sony trying to mimic Microsoft in one respect as well: I think they badly want a "Halo Killer", and will throw a lot of money away chasing that idea (whether that attempt is through Socom, Killzone, or Resistance...Doesn't matter). They should just grant Microsoft the victory in that respect, and go back to doing other things.

/rantoff

[Velorath]

That being said, I also think Sony has a knack for encouraging or supporting new ideas and talent (whether that be in the first or third party sense). Even when they lost some good things to MS in the last generation, they always seemed to find something new to fill the gap. Something that made you happy that you still had a PS2. To make a (poor) analogy, it's like they have the best sporting scouts in the league, while MS has the biggest pool of cash, but without the keenest sense on how to use it (until later, when they see the success on the other team).

I don't know that that's entirely true, at least as far as 3rd parties go.  It might have been more true back during the days of the first Playstation when it came to getting people like Square to develop games for their system rather than Nintendo's, but I think with the PS2 they were just riding the wave of success from the fanbase they had built up, rather than actively going out and encouraging developers to make new and innovative games.  All those new and wacky games and franchises were being released for the PS2 simply because that's where the most money was.

[stray]

All those new and wacky games and franchises were being released for the PS2 simply because that's where the most money was.

That's hard to disprove, I guess.

Bigger market or not though, I still have a hard time thinking any of the various PS2 exclusives (Okami, Rez, Silent Hill, DMC, Godhand, Katamari, any Atlus game, or even a US centric title like Guitar Hero...To name a few) could emerge on the Xbox. They could be ported and recognized later, sure....But they'd never originate there. Even when some of those games could be successes on their platform, they just don't seem like the thing they're encouraging people to make or play. Doesn't even come on their radar until after discovering people want them on another platform. They'd rather settle on established ideas, and churn out a few dozen variations of it. Until the next big thing comes out that they can port or copy.

There are a lot of parallels with how they behaved in the early PC/OS market as well. Or their late entry into the MP3 biz. Microsoft just isn't a very imaginative company.

As far as first party stuff goes, something Jaffe mentioned was pretty encouraging...That basically Sony has a ground up approach with it's developers. That they trust them enough to come up with their own ideas (Ico or SotC, for example, or Jaffe's PS Store fetish, are encouraged and not frowned upon). I don't know how MS works, but when I hear that the direction of Shadowrun was because of Microsoft's urging (the Shadowrun guy originally wanted an RPG), I think that speaks volumes. Do you think an Ico could ever come out of the Microsoft camp (not Ico per se...I just mean something as unique as it)?

[Margalis]

Interesting question of how much control MS/Sony/Nintendo excersize over their game libraries. I have no idea what the answer is.

[Velorath]

All those new and wacky games and franchises were being released for the PS2 simply because that's where the most money was.

That's hard to disprove, I guess.

Bigger market or not though, I still have a hard time thinking any of the various PS2 exclusives (Okami, Rez, Silent Hill, DMC, Godhand, Katamari, any Atlus game, or even a US centric title like Guitar Hero...To name a few) could emerge on the Xbox. They could be ported and recognized later, sure....But they'd never originate there. Even when some of those games could be successes on their platform, they just don't seem like the thing they're encouraging people to make or play. Doesn't even come on their radar until after discovering people want them on another platform. They'd rather settle on established ideas, and churn out a few dozen variations of it. Until the next big thing comes out that they can port or copy.

I think the original Xbox was shit for coming up with new games and franchises, but again the system was DOA in Japan and from what I can remember struggled in Europe as well, especially early on.  When you're a developer looking to make a return on your investment in developing a game, especially one that isn't part of an established franchise, the PS2 was definately the safest bet.  Hell, outside of developing DS games, it probably still is the best bet right now which is why we're still seeing a lot of PS2 releases this year.

There's no reason that Silent Hill or DMC couldn't have originated on the Xbox though (aside from the lack of worldwide popularity of the system as I already stated).  How much control do you really think MS or Sony have over what games companies like Konami or Capcom develop?

[Velorath]

Interesting question of how much control MS/Sony/Nintendo excersize over their game libraries. I have no idea what the answer is.

I'm guessing the control is pretty slim unless you go back to the days of NES and SNES when Nintendo had censorship abilities.  These days it probably amounts to "we'll give you X amount of money if you develop an exclusive game for us".

[stray]

All those new and wacky games and franchises were being released for the PS2 simply because that's where the most money was.

That's hard to disprove, I guess.

Bigger market or not though, I still have a hard time thinking any of the various PS2 exclusives (Okami, Rez, Silent Hill, DMC, Godhand, Katamari, any Atlus game, or even a US centric title like Guitar Hero...To name a few) could emerge on the Xbox. They could be ported and recognized later, sure....But they'd never originate there. Even when some of those games could be successes on their platform, they just don't seem like the thing they're encouraging people to make or play. Doesn't even come on their radar until after discovering people want them on another platform. They'd rather settle on established ideas, and churn out a few dozen variations of it. Until the next big thing comes out that they can port or copy.

I think the original Xbox was shit for coming up with new games and franchises, but again the system was DOA in Japan and from what I can remember struggled in Europe as well, especially early on.  When you're a developer looking to make a return on your investment in developing a game, especially one that isn't part of an established franchise, the PS2 was definately the safest bet.  Hell, outside of developing DS games, it probably still is the best bet right now which is why we're still seeing a lot of PS2 releases this year.

There's no reason that Silent Hill or DMC couldn't have originated on the Xbox though (aside from the lack of worldwide popularity of the system as I already stated).  How much control do you really think MS or Sony have over what games companies like Konami or Capcom develop?

As far as third parties go, I don't think it's "control" per se....But probably a fair bit of nudging. As far as I know, they do force things like achievements and such, and cockblock custom downloadable content....But I don't think they have anyone in their grip.

As for the nudging, take Capcom for example. I know that MS had a fair bit of input insomuch as they wanted Inafune to appeal a bit more to "American" sensibilities. Lost Planet and Dead Rising were the result, and nothing to scoff at....But not exactly innovative or particularly unique either (something which Capcom is perfectly capable of).

And hell yeah DMC would never originate on the XBox. At the time, it pretty much wrote the book on how an action adventure beat em up should behave in 3D. Most games of that sort are like it now. If MS was around back in the day, they would probably have felt the need to get involved, and would have encouraged a game on "established beat em up" principles or some shit. The end product would have been some pseudo 3d, hoppity side scrolling version of Castlevania.

Same goes with Silent Hill. They would have requested Konami to make a hyper Resident Evil knockoff with a bald Phil Anselmo look alike, instead of the subdued, creepy game that it is.

[Velorath]

As far as third parties go, I don't think it's "control" per se....But probably a fair bit of nudging. As far as I know, they do force things like achievements and such, and cockblock custom downloadable content....But I don't think they have anyone in their grip.

As for the nudging, take Capcom for example. I know that MS had a fair bit of input insomuch as they wanted Inafune to appeal a bit more to "American" sensibilities. Lost Planet and Dead Rising were the result, and nothing to scoff at....But not exactly innovative or particularly unique either (something which Capcom is perfectly capable of).

And hell yeah DMC would never originate on the XBox. At the time, it pretty much wrote the book on how an action adventure beat em up should behave in 3D. Most games of that sort are like it now. If MS was around back in the day, they would probably have felt the need to get involved, and would have encouraged a game on "established beat em up" principles or some shit. The end product would have been some pseudo 3d, hoppity side scrolling version of Castlevania.

Same goes with Silent Hill. They would have requested Konami to make a hyper Resident Evil knockoff with a bald Phil Anselmo look alike, instead of the subdued, creepy game that it is.

DMC originally started development as a Resident Evil game, with Capcom trying to revitalize the series after it had started to become stale with games like RE3.  It's not like Sony came to their HQ one day and told them to start working on an action/adventure game.  These guys have been in the business of making console games for a much longer time than Sony or MS, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that either company can influence Capcom in the way that you suggest.  If Lost Planet and Dead Rising (and how you consider Dead Rising not particularly innovative or unique I'll never know) are an attempt to cater more towards "American sensibilities", I'd imagine that it was Capcom's decision based on what they know of the 360's fanbase rather than a result of MS prodding them.

And again, why couldn't have DMC originated on the Xbox?  Capcom has been doing beat-em-up games since Final fucking Fight.  Strip away the the graphical improvements the art style, and the painfully bad story and voice acting, and all you really have is 3D Final Fight with bigger levels and some improvements in the fighting system.  This right here is your Capcom game that's not particularly innovative or unique.  It's a great evolution of the beat em up genre (at least the first one is, I really don't like 2 and 3) but that's it.

Between this and your Silent Hill comment though, you're really just letting your anti-MS bias show again.  Show me any sort of interviews or articles that suggest that MS, Sony, or Nintendo have any pull over what 3rd parties develop that you suggest.  Sony and the PS2 didn't create the quirky Japanese game or preach innovation to 3rd party studios.  If anything is responsible for the variety of games we've seen in recent years, I'd guess it's the explosion in popularity of Anime and Manga among kids in the US these days showing Japanese developers that there actually is a market for stuff they probably wouldn't have bothered bringing to the States back in the old days.

[stray]

I'd imagine that it was Capcom's decision based on what they know of the 360's fanbase rather than a result of MS prodding them.

Dude, he said it himself. Not like he had a grudge or anything, but it's an idea he's touched upon (and yes, you are partly correct. I'm sure Capcom saw the wisdom in taking that course). I'd look up the interview for you (which was around the time Lost Planet was released), but considering your attitude now, I'd rather just to tell you fuck off. Look it up yourself. :)

And again, why couldn't have DMC originated on the Xbox?  Capcom has been doing beat-em-up games since Final fucking Fight.  Strip away the the graphical improvements the art style, and the painfully bad story and voice acting, and all you really have is 3D Final Fight with bigger levels and some improvements in the fighting system.  This right here is your Capcom game that's not particularly innovative or unique.  It's a great evolution of the beat em up genre (at least the first one is, I really don't like 2 and 3) but that's it.

Uh huh....Yeah, right. It's that simple. That's why the entire console world was at a loss on how to translate games like Final Fight and Streets of Rage into the 3D space well, and kept failing....And then uniformly praised and imitated DMC after it came out. Yeah, it's just nothing. All they had to do was port Double Dragon, and they would have garnered GOTY awards.

Between this and your Silent Hill comment though, you're really just letting your anti-MS bias show again.

Why is that Silent Hill comment biased? They've shown me nothing to indicate they'd have the balls to encourage a similarly different and/or original title like that. They've had plenty of time and money to do it as well, both in this generation and the last.

Besides all that, the things I say about the XBox are things most of it's fans would consider it's selling points. They are considered it's strong features. Yet, when I point it out, I'm biased, and not "really" seeing Microsoft for the great, opened minded company they really are. Give me a break.

The truth is: I'm not biased, and you're wishing your XBox was something it's not.

Now if you've got a problem with that image, then take it up with Microsoft. It's not my fault.

Oh, and lastly, I told Calantus to get both an Xbox and a PS3 --- WHEN HE WAS LEANING TOWARDS THE PS3 ALONE. So kiss my ass.

[schild]

The reality is this:

There's a whole lot of shitty Capcom games. Developing for the system with far better online integration, a larger installed base, and easier dev tools is a no brainer.

The PS3 just isn't there yet.

No one wants to compete with Nintendo anymore. It's not worth it. It's better to avoid Mario and Pokemon altogether.

If Microsoft keeps nabbing exclusives in a total turncoat manner making them exclusives on their system or even a shortly thereafter release, they could take this generation. There aren't enough gamers in Japan to really make a difference.

People will buy Wiis for Smash Bros, Metroid, etc. People will buy a PS3 for God of War 3, Insomniac stuff, and whatever Ueda spits out. People will buy Microsoft systems for the obscene number of games that have somehow ended up on it. It's very likely the the 360 is the true successor for the PS2. Microsoft has played that very well. Sony took the higher technology route Microsoft took last gen and came out with an industrial workhorse that will be the home of many amazing games. Just not as many as the 360. The way I see it, this isn't a generation where bias fucking matters. You either get them all or you get two or one and miss out on some killer apps.

Quit going back and forth. Who gives a fuck if Stray likes the PS3. It's inevitable, he'll get a 360. Just like anyone else who likes games this generation. Whether it's three years or four years, it'll happen. People knock me for liking the Japanesey shit. But you know what? When you add up Amiya Soft, D3P, UBISoft, Eidos, Mistwalker, Nippon Ichi, and a ridiculous number of other Japanese developers supporting the 360 HEAVILY, it just means the times are fucking changing. Cope.

Edit: Didn't mean to imply that Eidos and UBISoft were Japanese. I put them in there because they are, above all else, 360 supporters this gen. And if you're wondering, Amiya puts out Culdcept. They get maybe 1-2 games out a generation and they're fucking great. D3P is starting to pump out lots of stuff stateside, and for next gen they're starting with EDF3 and Oneechanbara (unnanounced, but it'll happen). Mistwalker is Lost Odyssey, but they're also doing ASH and Cry On. Nothing is really truly known about the latter, the former is a DS title. NISA hasn't announced it, but Makai Wars was a PS3 title, probably 360 now since Gust and a mess of other devs they publish (including IF) is 360. It's just one of those things I didn't even expect.

[stray]

Yes, I will be getting a 360. It is inevitable. Hell, I basically bought an XBox for just two freakin' games. It's a better situation this time around.


Btw, just so everyone knows, Schild told me to fly my freak flag high, and so that's what I'll do for the time being  :-D.