Slashdot Mirror


The Full Story On Warhawk PS3

TimC writes "1up has up a really fantastic interview with Dylan Jobe, the director of Warhawk for PS3. He addresses why they went multiplayer, and why people shouldn't be worried about it being downloadable. 'We had a few really fun missions. But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game. They don't. The bar is set, and it's set really, really high. And we can hit and exceed that bar in a multiplayer ... Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we can do crummy music. Convenience is great, but quality always wins out.'"

32 comments

  1. Worst. Analogy. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we can do crummy music.


    Seriously, what? I mean, what he's saying is supposed to make some kind of sense, right?
    1. Re:Worst. Analogy. Ever. by ifrag · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps this is what he was getting at...

      Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we should stop making crummy music.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
  2. Translation by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We had a few really fun missions. But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game. They don't. The bar is set, and it's set really, really high. And we can hit and exceed that bar in a multiplayer

    Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money. So we took the multiplayer shortcut that is so popular these days.

    Sometimes I really miss the computer games of the 90's. They provided such an outstanding single-player experience. :(
    1. Re:Translation by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      I would definitely include the most-creative of the single-player games from the 80s in that list. ...and some of the multiplayer games from the 80s: although M.U.L.E. was an awesome multiplayer game, however, it wasn't multiplayer in the same way as the multiplayer games nowadays... same for W.O.R.M.S., et. al... (this post, while responding to its parent, also refers directly to the gp, the article: "But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game.")

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    2. Re:Translation by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I would definitely include the most-creative of the single-player games from the 80s in that list

      There were definitely some good games of the 80's. However, they didn't quite get that "Wow" impact until the 90's. You know, the impact you got just starting the game and taking in the movie-like intros before jumping into the fray/cockpit/story/whatever. Origin was probably the company that most pushed the idea that a great game and a great looking game are not mutually exclusive. That idea was later picked up by other studios like Westwood, who went on to create wonderful games wrapped in wonderful and immersive visuals.

      Now those studios are gone. All gone. *sniff* Thanks a lump, EA. >:-(
    3. Re:Translation by kenny0 · · Score: 1

      multiplayer wasn't available back then...

    4. Re:Translation by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, the rumor on the Internets is that singleplayer just didn't work out well at all, and wasn't fun. I'd rather they cut it then give us a crappy version of it. I'm also completely confused on why it's going to be a Blu-ray title. It sounds like the game is going to be smaller than expected, so why go the full out retail route? I think that's going to hurt sales.

      They have promised a demo for late spring. If that plays out well, then it might justify the retail release I guess. The game looks fun from videos, but I haven't seen enough of the ground combat to determine whether the videos are an accurate representation of gameplay.

    5. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they had MP then, you just had to dial each other up...no games via internet...

    6. Re:Translation by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I really miss some of the 'good old' game studios like Origin. They made fantastic games and tried to push the envelope in story telling, plot and self-directed game play as well as graphics and sound capabilities.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    7. Re:Translation by Shadowlore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the other hand, it's refreshing. Nobody should have any illusions that Warhawk is a decent or even good single player game. I've got no problems with companies releasing MP game sonly, just as I have no problem with companies releasing SP only games. Why does every game have to be ultimate MP and ultimate SP?

      Neither style of play is inherently better or easier. We complicate things by demanding they be both.

      The onus is on the next gen consoles to have more networked games, for better or worse. IN a global gaming network (Xbox, PS3, PC), multiplayer becomes much more feasible and wlil naturally increase in occurrence. It only becomes a problem if single player games go away.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  3. Shadowrun did this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this will preempt some of the Sony-bashing :P Plus, I'm sure that they pointed to Shadowrun as an example of this being an OK course of development when they found out they'd already destroyed most of the budget for the single-player game...

  4. Multiplayer only may not be so bad by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Wolfenstein ET, America's Army and UT2003 have zero or not significant single player modes. They have no issues attracting players. I reckon a good multiplayer game can sell itself if its any good. Even better for console users is that Warhawk doesn't even require a disc meaning you can fire it up in half the time. Which is no bad thing.

    1. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by 2008 · · Score: 1
      There aren't any successful multiplayer-combat only console games though, are there? Aside from the Final Fantasy MMORPG.

      Anyway, the real reason I posted was this - developer, describing his game:

      ...it's this big group hug of war, basically. Put that on the advertising and I'll buy it!
      --
      I quit!
    2. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by taxman_10m · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America's Army and Wolfenstein: ET are also free.

    3. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True dat, but his point would have been equally valid if he'd used some of the other commercial examples. Quake 3, World of Warcraft, Slashdot, Battlefield, Counter-Strike...

      OK semi-joking about Slashdot.

    4. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by beef623 · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but I still bought all of the UTs, Battlefield 2, Quake 3 and others(knowing that I wouldn't be able to play them online) because they would let you play single player. The online side may be the best part of it but that's no excuse to cut out the other part of the game. You don't hear too many complaints about UT and Battlefield because their single player mode sucks, you hear how awsome the multiplayer is.

    5. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by bigred85 · · Score: 1

      "Wolfenstein ET, America's Army and UT2003 have zero or not significant single player modes."

      You're talking about games that are either multiplayer expansions, free, or were never touted as truly single-player in the first place. It's understandable in those cases, in which case they can spend their time and development cash entirely on building truly great multiplayer experiences (of course I've heard pretty lackluster things about U2TK3, but that's beside the point).

      In the case of a game like Warhawk, which was anticipated to have some form of single-player campaign from conception, a move like this understandably looks like a cop-out, which of course the developers have accompanied with the proper excus...err, I mean good reason.

      Add to that the fact that the game, unless they throw in some killer graphics and sound, is most likely not making the most of the Blu-Ray medium it's going to be on, and it's just another reason I won't be buying a PS3 anytime this decade.

    6. Re:Multiplayer only may not be so bad by DrXym · · Score: 1
      And UT isn't and neither is RTCW, BF1942 or a number of multiplayer games including most MMOs you care to mention. Sure some of them have "please insert disc" requirements, but not all. And I bet you that if their users had the choice, they'd choose not to have to insert a disc everytime if given the choice.

      Hence why I think Warhawk might actually prove quite popular. Assuming the game is any good, I believe the low barrier (say $20), plus fast game loads ensures it will become enormously popular. Substantially more popular than if ever it were stamped out as a disc that people had to buy.

  5. Downloadable? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    He addresses why they went multiplayer, and why people shouldn't be worried about it being downloadable.

    I didn't see the part about where you could transfer ownership to someone else after you purchase it. Then again, they did say "I would agree. I mean, speaking hypothetically [smiles], I think there's a much bigger opportunity -- it's more than just high quality titles." so maybe they acknowledge the raping they can give consumers' wallets with this. Games you can never re-sell, that you can never bring over to a friends' house, that you can never lend... Sony will make money because of the way they inconvenience people.

    So is there any word if you can put downloadable games on a memory card and bring them to someone else's house and play them on their PS3? You can't even do this on the Wii... because even though you can put the game on a memory card, it's married to the Wii that downloaded it so you can never play it on another machine.

    1. Re:Downloadable? by TB · · Score: 1

      Actulay you can share PS3 Downloadable games with upto 5 others aparently.

    2. Re:Downloadable? by DarkJC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can download any of the Playstation Store titles on up to 5 different PS3s. On GameFAQs for example, people are already trading a download of a certain game for others. Trading money for a game share would work just as well.

  6. End of the used Game Store??? by jzarling · · Score: 1

    How gamers will finance thier next game purchase when you can't sell the used one at the local shop?

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
    1. Re:End of the used Game Store??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (deep, evil laugh) Get a job!

      n.b. I'm a gamer with a job...

  7. The problem with this article is Dylan Jobe by donglekey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dylan Jobe is the reason the project went down, Dylan Jobe is the reason the project wasted millions over the course of 5 years. He is giving interviews after he has been demoted severly because of his complete failure as a producer.

    To add to that, Sony "finished" their firmware only two or three weeks before the PS3 release. They changed it non-stop and they keep changing it. Imagine working on a platform that has bare bones development tools and everything is changing out from under you. Now throw Dylan Jobe into the mix and you have failure despite a hugely talented team.

    1. Re:The problem with this article is Dylan Jobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lamer.

  8. Shadowrun was never a singleplayer experience by MMaestro · · Score: 1

    Except in the case of Shadowrun, you could argue that going multiplayer-only is remaining true to its roots. With the exception on the SNES and Genesis games, the Shadowrun series was just another paper-and-pen table top game meant to be played with friends.

  9. Money isn't the only factor... by Herak · · Score: 1

    Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money. So you think that just throwing more resources at the project would improve it? That isn't usually true for software engineering in general, and it's CERTAINLY not the case for game development. A larger budget won't turn a typical designer into Miyamoto.

    If it wasn't working, it wasn't working. I think it's cool that they have enough pride in their work to not release something if they don't think it's good enough. If more developers took this attitude, I think we'd have a much healthier game industry.

    You can criticize the developers for not being able to pull this game off, but at least give them props for recognizing their failure.
    1. Re:Money isn't the only factor... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      So you think that just throwing more resources at the project would improve it?

      I love it when people put words into my mouth. Not. :-/

      Time == Money

      Therefore, if they need more time to get the single player to a "fun" state, then it's going to cost more money. Whereas if they've already got the multiplayer up and running, they can cheat on a lot of the game content by using HI rather than AI to do fun things like setup ambushes, provide a challenging dogfight, guard the embankments, etc.
    2. Re:Money isn't the only factor... by Herak · · Score: 1

      I apologize if I put words in your mouth, but you missed my point. Spending more time won't necessarily improve the game, either. Your view is oversimplifying. Some games are not meant to be single player, just as some are not meant to be multiplayer - why force it?

  10. No matter the reason this could be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they put out a great game and price it right ($19.99), offer tons of new levels via dowload frequently, control the cheating, and make this puppy lag free. This could be a bonafide hit.

    A lot of folks bash the Playstation network but I actually prefer it to live and am actually considering canceling/not renewing live. While not as slick as live, Sony's online experience is "mostly" devoid of the pimple faced brats screaming in your ear how much you suck, and throwing around racial slurs every 10 seconds. I love multiplayer but those types of players really have taken the fun out of it for me. Resistance multiplayer on the PS3 was like a breath of fresh air.

    Hopefully the brats and idiots stay away from the PS3. If so, and Warhawk delivers...I'm sold

    1. Re:No matter the reason this could be awesome by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you don't get too many kids yet because of the price. Should the PS3 take off, they will come. Enjoy it while you can.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.