The myth of the more powerful console.

[bugrimmar]

Reasonable said:

bugrimmar said:
^exactly.

i didn't put developer talent because we can't really quantify that. i mean, can we really say that Epic has more talent than Bethesda? what i put in is that if a developer puts a lot of time and money into a project, they're more likely to achieve good results. if they're more talented, it only adds to the mix.

more powerful, to the average fanboy, just means better graphics. funny how simple everything is when you're blinded by PR isn't it?

 

I think you should add it.  Your other points are based on the same logic in many ways.  The point isn't to try and judge specific developers, but to aknowledge their skills as demonstrated by the final product.

Clearly some developers may have better graphic artists, others engine coders, etc.  That will have a massive impact on the final product.

When you see a title which has serious frame rate issues compared to similar titles, it's not down to the consoles.  It's down to the developer's own ability.

Also, I'd disagree this is hard to quantify.  This is actually easier to quantify than anything else you noted.  Art direction, etc. is subjective, code is objective.  Whether you like a game or not, like its genre or not, the code, the engine, etc. is objective and be analysed as such.

While different art direction, etc can be contributing factors, if you have two FPS and one has a much higher resolution and better frame rate, and if they are not wildly different in targeted detail level, number of character models, particle effects, etc. then I can pretty much guarantee you that the developers technically ability for the higher resolution title was superior.

I will concede budget can influence this as well.  But really, if you look at the engines/titles delivered by Valve, Epic, Naughty Dog, etc. it's pretty clear you're looking at developers with more talented coders, etc. than the bulk of your average releases.

Note I'm not saying this makes for better games.  Personally, on a purely technical level, I think the Killzone 2 engine is a better piece of technical coding than Bungie's engine for Halo 3 in terms of the resolution it can support in conjunction with the lighting effects, particle effects, etc. on display - however at the same time I would critize the Killzone 2 developer's ability to craft narrative, character and mission structures.  something Bungie are I would argue (although this is perhaps more subjective) better at.

But I digress.

well think about it this way:

budget is in $, a number that can easily be counted. development time is in months and years, numbers that can easily be counted too.

talent.. can we really count that? or is talent just a manifestation of the amount of time and money that are invested into a project?