Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Developers React To Winning E3 Critics Awards

Posted by Zonk on from the i'd-like-to-thank-the-academy dept.

This past week the winners of the 2007 E3 critics awards were announced. Newsweek's LevelUp blog had the chance to speak to some of the developers behind the award-winning games. Along with speaking to folks like Alex Ward for Burnout Paradise , Alex Rigopulos for Rock Band , and Herman Hulst for KillZone 2 , N'Gai chatted with the men behind Bioware's Mass Effect , Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka. It's an interesting look at what the folks behind the games think when they get public praise of this nature. Says Zeschuk: "Going into the show is always a little daunting as the competition is extremely fierce, but Mass Effect being recognized by the key industry press really gives us a lot of confidence that we're doing things right. We believe that Mass Effect will settle the "are games art?" argument once and for all ..." He also spoke to Eiji Aonuma for Phantom Hourglass , Cevat Yerli for Crysis , and Alex Evans for the innovative LittleBigPlanet .

34 comments

  1. who cares? by aichpvee · · Score: 0, Troll

    Anyone?

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
    1. Re:who cares? by deftcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was an E3 this year?

      </tongue in cheek>

      --
      Peace sells, but who's buying?
    2. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, for Sony...

      Nintendo and Microsoft had nothing worth talking about.

    3. Re:who cares? by nutshell42 · · Score: 4, Funny
      There's nothing as informative, interesting and insightful as acceptance speeches. People tend to save their most thoughtful insights for the person shoving a microphone in their face right after they got a prize.

      This is even more true if the prize is meaningless and instead of an immediate reaction it is dispensed by press release.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    4. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be why a total of one Sony exclusive made it into the awards compared to the four Xbox 360 exclusives.

    5. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That would be why a total of one Sony exclusive made it into the awards compared to the four Xbox 360 exclusives."

      I stand corrected, sir. Let me get back to listening to my collection of Grammy winning artists!

    6. Re:who cares? by nschubach · · Score: 0

      Only one exclusive?

      Special Commendation for Graphics : Killzone 2
      Best Original Game : LittleBigPlanet

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. I've seen screenshots of Killzone 2, it's nothing to write home about. Or about at all.
      2. A "special commendation" isn't a freaking award. It's the trophy you give to the idiot who shows up to a competition they're woefully unqualified for as a sort of "participation" trophy.

      I'm only counting the actual awards, not "commendations".

    8. Re:who cares? by JFMulder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe how some people on Slashdot are jadded. I mean, here you have a group of professionnals who care deeply about the game they are working on and they are being told by the very people who will review their game and somewhat sway the public's decision that they really loved it.

      You guys think that these developpers aren't happy, even if it's just honorary? You people need to get a job and see how it feels when people validate your work, even if they are "only journalists".

    9. Re:who cares? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      1. I've seen screenshots of Killzone 2, it's nothing to write home about. Or about at all.
      2. A "special commendation" isn't a freaking award. It's the trophy you give to the idiot who shows up to a competition they're woefully unqualified for as a sort of "participation" trophy.

      I'm only counting the actual awards, not "commendations".

      Well ... considering anyone who has a PS3 can (and probably has) downloaded the trailer from E3, you should know that any "screenshots" you might have seen don't do it justice.

      The gameplay may be an unknown quantity, since no ones played a demo yet (which is probably why it didn't earn anything else), and because info about the game is still very help very tightly, but I've seen the trailer and, like others obviously thought, the visuals were impressive.

      Don't kid yourself, E3 doesn't need to make up an award just for participation.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    10. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the trailer with the low-res textures all over the place? The trailer that looks like crap at 400x300 or whatever the resolution that YouTube uses?

      Yeah, I've seen it. It's not impressive. It looks like Half-Life 2 - a three year old game.

      Face it, it was a dumb award given to try and demonstrate that they weren't "anti-Sony" even though Sony's E3 performance was abysmal.

    11. Re:who cares? by powerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you mean this video from the last time, that was pre-rendered from E3 2005? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko9xC6TMdiw because this isn't the video they released of actual game footage. Just asking because its the first thing that shows up on You Tube, is 2 years old, and is acknowledged as pre-rendered by Sony.

      Or did you look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e18ljZacSGg which is the footage from this E3 in 2007, and is in-game footage from a working engine?

      And yeah ... YouTube always does justice to the videos it displays, especially the hi-res ones with lots of fog/particle effects. [/sarcasm]

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    12. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the floor textures in the "in-game" trailer. Note the GIANT PIXELS in the texture.

      YouTube isn't adding those. If anything, it would obscure them.

      If that's the best that the PS3 can do, worthy of having a special commendation, then I'm not interested in the PS3.

    13. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL!

      Do you have any idea how much weight a trolling anonymous coward has? The only GIANT PIXELS I see are artifacts produced by the double compression the video has been through. Once because its high def video recorded and distributed at low def, and a second time when the resolution was dropped again to You Tube "quality".

      I feel bad for the GP trying to respond to you instead of just disregarding you.

      Of course I don't expect you to listen to me either. ... I'm an anonymous coward also! :)

      (or am I the same coward trying to keep a good troll going? ... see the problem with trying to post stuff as A.C.? ... no credibility.)

    14. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The video itself looks just fine under any other medium.

      The only giant pixels are because its on YouTube (or do you mean the giant blocks of concrete that have lost all detail in YouTube?)

      The original video has parts of it motion blurred, filled with smoke and particle effects, and heat blur. Some of the lighting effects (night w/spot lights) are gorgeous, and YouTube truly does not do it justice.

      Try taking a look at it, as it was meant to be seen. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21504.html ... of course you already knew that.

  2. Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    After the beta fiasco?
    After the rumored dedicated server support came up empty?
    After winning a most disappointing game of E3 award?

    If you had any doubt what a company like Microsft can buy from the media here is you are.

    Halo 3??? LOL!

    1. Re:Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Hyping and buying awards and massive amounts of press coverage of tired old Halo really helped Microsoft last gen in their tie with Nintendo for last place in the console market.

      It is hard to find a game with worse multiplayer than Halo 3 in 2007:

      Pitiful 16 player cap on matches
      Last gen networking setup with P2P and no dedicated servers which gives massive lag and cheating problems and host advantages. Not only that you have search through ping time lists everytime you want to join a match if you don't want to end up watching a slideshow as you lag off some clown with a crap net connection.

      And the final insult is you are stuck paying for a crappies online experience with Microsoft's weak online service that can't handle dedicated servers and free modding like the PS3 and PC online does.

      Award winning crap is still crap.

    2. Re:Halo 3??? by heinousjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet so many people play it. Naturally, they're sheep, right? Of course, the massive amount of people supporting the PS2 were not sheep but thinking individuals who recognized superiority, right?

      What I don't understand is why you guys bother with Slashdot, of all places. Your techniques would be much more effective on a board populated by dipshits. There are too many free thinking people here to fall for your tricks, as they are old and transparent. Just some friendly information for you.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:Halo 3??? by Rebelgecko · · Score: 2, Informative

      To put it into perspective, Gears of War has an 8 player limit for Vs. mode online and is one of the most popular and most well-received games on the X-Box 360. More players doesn't necessarily mean more fun.

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    4. Re:Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey at least this time he didnt spout off about Halo 3 being a last gen looking title, or the 360 being crippled by no hard drive and only DVD storage, or the 360 having a 150% failure rate that will bankrupt MS and cause mass baby suicides...

      I know a lot of people think the GP is a sony shill, but honestly he or she is so completely ignorant and insulting I really can't believe that anyone would hire them.

    5. Re:Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your trolling back to digg, DanaLL. Your kung fu isn't strong enough here.

    6. Re:Halo 3??? by CelticLo · · Score: 1

      And the final insult is you are stuck paying for a crappies online experience with Microsoft's weak online service that can't handle dedicated servers and free modding like the PS3 and PC online does.
      Actually XboxLive can handle third party dedicated servers, EA for instance runs their own servers on Live. And here lies the problem...
      EA have actually shutdown online support for a few of their xbox360, (and a lot of xbox), titles whereas Microsoft continue supporting all Live titles on their servers.
      http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/08 /03/ea-shuts-the-door-on-online-play-for-even-more -catalog-games

    7. Re:Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! If you think the people at Slashdot are "free thinking", then you're obvious a sheep.

    8. Re:Halo 3??? by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Free thinkers? On Slashdot? That's a good one.

    9. Re:Halo 3??? by powerlord · · Score: 0

      To put it into perspective, Gears of War has an 8 player limit for Vs. mode online and is one of the most popular and most well-received games on the X-Box 360.

      More players doesn't necessarily mean more fun.


      Yeah ... Sony better catch up fast in On-line.

      Warhawk only had 16 vs. 16 as the max in the Beta (with rumors of 32 vs. 32 in the final product).
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    10. Re:Halo 3??? by RamblinLonghorn · · Score: 1

      Warhawk only had 16 vs. 16 as the max in the Beta (with rumors of 32 vs. 32 in the final product).

      Considering they scrapped Single Player, I'd hope they have 32 vs 32
    11. Re:Halo 3??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah ... because everyone's bought Halo for the Single player mode. ... get real.

      I agree with the GP Halo has become an overpriced moneymaker that MS is trying to squeeze for all its worth (take a look at the "extra super Legend edition", "collectors edition" and the "limited edition").

      Its also been hyped to kingdom come and will probably sell well because of that, but that doesn't make it new, or innovative, or a leader in the field. At most it makes it successfully marketed, something MS does well.

      Part of what makes MP fun is not just how many "new and innovative" (ha!) weapons Halo can come up, but how many people are interacting on a battlefield.

      16x16 will provide a much more fun experience for most people (if they are honest about it). I'm looking forward to Warhawk (and don't believe they'll actually come out with 32 vs. 32), and I *might* pick up Halo 3 once the hype dies down enough that real reviews start surfacing (no, I decided not to participate in MS's "Pay for play" Beta). On the other hand Warhawk is already pre-ordered (I've heard very good things from friends who got in on the closed Beta).

    12. Re:Halo 3??? by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      Also, there are games that support dedicated servers like Rainbow 6. You'd have to have a spare 360 and an extra copy of the game though.

  3. Only 8 players? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

    Eight?? Seriously? There is nothing better to play online? I like small fps matches now and then (mostly for games with realistic damage models), but small IMO is 16 players. Didn't old IPX based DOS games support more than eight players? Maybe GoW's maps are tiny.

    1. Re:Only 8 players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Have you ever played any of the Worms games? 4 players is where it's at!

  4. This does not bode well... by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    The game looked great at E3. How much work is left to be done before launch, and when can we expect to hear some details about multiplayer?

    At E3 we wanted to show that we can live up to the promise of the original trailer. As for the second part of the question, we plan to follow up with more information on the game as additional details become available.

    First off, he did not answer the first past of the question which is pretty damned important since Resistance:FoM lost a lot of the hardcore FPS gamers after the Halo 3 beta kidnapped anyone with a Xbox 360 and Xbox Live for several weeks. Secondly, "we plan to follow up with more information"? The game has been in development for 2 years (that we know of) and they're not giving details about multiplayer right now? What the hell have they been doing this whole time?

    1. Re:This does not bode well... by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      I think the most pathetic thing out of that Q&A, by far, is that they basically admitted that they're basing their entire damn game on that CG movie that they didn't even have a hand in creating!

      It just boggles my mind that the sequel to one of the most mediocre PS2 games ever is getting this much hype that we're even discussing this matter at all.

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    2. Re:This does not bode well... by powerlord · · Score: 0

      You're right. He dodged the question. If you want to pick up a fun game that is focussed on multiplayer for the PS3, look into Warhawk. Its due out soon and the closed Beta was a lot of fun (32 player team or free-for-all matches, ground, and air based combat, different vehicles, weapons, etc).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  5. Halo 3???-Swat 4. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually something like Swat 4 works nicely with small teams and allows more for tactics over numerical superiority.