I will try to answer to this because I read that many many times. The fact that games look better during a console cycle is only half dependent on the architecture being "obscure". Smart people can utilize hardware very efficiently quite fast (read: in a short amount of time). Some people also get the idea that some games don't use the given hardware by 100% which is also wrong. Every game should (and most probably does) use the given hardware by 100%. The question is *how* they use it.

One crucial part that games look better during a console cycle is that the software, for example, gets better. Better profilers, compilers, documentation. On top of that, *your* software gets better (from a programmer's view): You find smarter ways for calculating stuff, your engines evolves, there are efficiency potentials that arise if you are a good mathematician, perhaps you can offload stuff to other processing units you didn't think of before, general advances in 3d computing...

Another quickfire question for you

Forward+, Deferred, Hybrid Deferred or some other varaiation?

In your current project or just what you prefer in general or whatever.

I know the answer will probably be it depends on what you are tring to do lol

So, if I understood you right, Wii U games just won't look as good as on PS4/X1? No gameplay features will be droped? I could live with that!

And to bridge my question with that one of the_dengle; Wii U won't be able to handle straight ports AND 3rd parties don't usually sell as well on Nintendo platforms, what then can Nintendo do to get better 3rd party support? For Wii U specifically, and for Nintendo platforms generally. What can they do to get more and better support next gen? Aaaaand, why don't Western studios do much of portable gaming? It seems to me they're more willing to support Vita rather than 3DS, is that true or am I seeing things?

Damn... that's quite a lot of questions =/

Anyways, you're a cool guy for doing this! Very nice of you =)

@Nyleveia

Have you had the opportunity to use the MS Orleans platform for game development.  Right now I believe it's still internal to MS studios but I wanted to know if MS has allowed 3rd party developers to code against it.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, and let me again express gratitude to you for having made this thread. 

If I may, I'd like to ask a couple follow up questions:

Assuming I have knowledge of a programming language or two, would there be any benefit to developing my own engine over learning say Unity? I am assuming that a game built in a Unity framework still will let you add your own custom code if it is needed?

As for the roles to cover, it seems a minumum set up is to have a programmer, a graphics artist, a sound engineer and a script writer. That is an encouragingly small set of roles to fill, but how viable is that set up in your opinion?

Finally, if you have any knowledge or experience with how a game idea is funded and sent to actual production: What assets do you need to have in place before you can approach investors to get funding for a game? I am assuming a pretty extensive game design document would be required as well as sample art work and concept models, but are they also looking for working code and playable parts of the game for example? Any tips here would be greately appreciated.

Yes, yes, those vending machines can be quite frustrating!  They are also super heavy, and it's bad when they fall on people.  Be careful with that.

I was thinking for like a recurring problem – more like frame rate issues.  Crazy AI where all the baddies would either kill too effectively or all trap themselves in a room or something.  Those frustrating weird problems that break games, but are very hard to find the exact cause.

And thanks for doing this.

If i had a recurring problem i would probably have been fired by now, but the most common problem is hitting compile and the compiler not making it through to the end without a serious error because you missed a bracket, semi colon or similar somewhere along the line in your quest to complete your work.

1) If you have a small team and your endgame is to get a game to retail, then your own engine allows more flexibility to your project and avoids licensing issues, but for the most part an existing engine is cheaper in the longrun, and saves time too, especially when the engine has a large community of people using it, their forums can be an indespensible tool for resolving issues, even if someone elses arent identical to your own.

2) To get a project rolling to a point where you have something to show, its more than enough, you can then advertise your project and you will find available programmers, arists, sound engineers, musicians and so forth, are much more open to the idea of working on the project, than someone who simply says they have an idea for a game can you help - having something there work in progress makes all the difference.

you would of course continue on and finish a project with the small team, you may end up cutting a few corners but its possible if everyone or even just a single skilled person really puts the dedication and time in to it

3) Usually, you get a small team together, brainstorm, get an idea down on paper, make a few models, get a bit of a trailer together, set up a meeting with publishers and show them, they will then try to destroy your soul or your ideas to shape it in to something they like, and its from that point either a no, or a yes but we want to change lots of things, and a balancing act between getting your own ideas in and satisfying them enough to fund it.

if you have the money funding your own project allows a lot more freedom, but if youre being funded without a franchise, youre at the mercy of who pays the bills, once you have a successful franchise they generally leave you to it.

I cant answer this one  sadly, maybe eventually.

1) It depends on the game, if its something like rayman then it probably wouldnt need much cutting at all, something kinda normal and not really graphics or calculation heavy would need just resolution and texture adjustments, but for the more demanding stuff using compute and really intense 3d load, you would see things like the meshes of buildings simplified greatly, "accessory" models such as pipes and so on removed, maybe the complete removal of some features or dramatically cut down, such as environmental destruction and fluid dynamics.

What that means in the longrun is that digital titles may end up having wiiu ports, but major blockbusters would need its own version making, or would received a heavy chopped down port, but realistically, until the wiiu changes its image of being a console that only appeals to a small market, even the chopped up ports it has already been getting will be less and less common.

2) If they want third party support they need to be more open with their eshop, build a proper accounts sytem so people arent worried about losing their purchases, its one of the main things that puts nintendo owners off of buying high ticket items on the eshop currently.

That and relax the guidelines behind publishing with them, of course adjusting how much money is paid out to the publisher would help too.

3) Easier to port work over to the vita than it is to port to the 3DS, again down to money, i.e. spend at little as possible and make as much as possible, at the same time while nowhere near as bad, the 3ds is still considered to be a primarilly nintendo dominated platform and that puts developers off, where as the playing field with the Vita is much more open

We dont pick one and build a game with it, we build a game and use the one best suited to it, all of them have their strengths and weaknesses so its just a case of  setting a path, and following that path as close as possible, and picking which solutions best follow the path you have chosen.

I visited a major studios HQ during TGS and got to spend an hour or so playing a build of a game that will be shown off soon, to me that games environment, art style, atmosphere, hell just its overall presentation, blows away anything currently on offer on any platform, but then, my appreciation of what looks beautiful and someone elses are entirely different, despite being an engine programmer, the tech isnt what impresses me, what people create with it is.

you never truly squeeze everything a peice of hardware has to offer completely, the same is true for the new consoles, being x86 makes no difference, games 2 years from now will blow launch titles away, games 4 years from now will blow games 2 years from now away, and so on.

Consoles benefit from a closed, fixed platform, x86 on the other hand evolves to match hardware, rather than evolves on a fixed specification, as such rather than squeezing the most out of the platform we simply tack more support, functions and features on as new hardware releases.

the consoles life cycle will continue as it always has, to take just as long as it always has, to get every last drop of power out of it, and x86 as a whole may well benefit from this process.

I have one simple question: Why are you doing this?

Why not?

I don't know, it takes time and effort and you don't really get anything from it. You also won't be able to answer the most interesting questions to most people, such as like what kind of game are you making, for which company do you work, which games have you been involved so far, etc.

Nvm, I wonder: Which modern games do you admire most from a programmer perspective (I don't really mean your favorite games), but the ones that have achieved the most impressive things to you. And if you name some games, what kind of achievements are impressive?