I should have posted this a while ago, but I just didn't get around to it.
Anyway, I never thought ports were cheap shovelware, but I did think the costs were only a sizable fraction of an original game at most. But then I decided to just finally ask to be sure, which is what I did here:
You should ignore all the pages after the first, unless you want to see some idiots arguing (which got the thread locked). Yes, I was one of those idiots, but then I later realized I was posting in a bad mood. I PM'ed the other guy to apologizes, and it turned out he was posting in a bad mood as well. So really, don't bother with those.
Now before you go, "They're lying!" or "Sven is full of it!", see the title of this very thread. I was about to go, "They're axaggerating," myself, but then I remembered Twestern gave a list of all the things that have to be redone for ports (I just can't remember the link, that was so long ago). I didn't believe him at first, but that was largely because I didn't really know how much involved with the game industry. Yes, he claimed he worked for a company, but I only had his word at the time, and this being the internet, that isn't that much to go by.
Now knowing what work he does (almost, what specific part of development do you do again?), and the fact that Capcom and Twestern statements corroborate each other, I admit that ports cost a lot more than I thought (which means they cost a hell of a lot more than the rest of you thought).
Now why is this on the Nintendo page? Because of all the complaints about ports on the Wii.
I'm not sure where this assumption of cheapness about ports came about. I think a lot of us just assumed it was a matter of converting files to the formats the new system accepted. It does not work that way.
Code and data are not only written for the system they are on, but also the specs. Remember with consoles there is no DirectX to make different components play nice. Even a PS2 game has to be explicitly rewritten to match the specifics for the system (for one thing, every part of a PS2 game that works with the 4th megabyte of EDRAM has to be adjusted to work with the slower, but larger, IT-SRAM, every part). Even the Wii version of RE4 required all the assets designed for the PS2 (costumes, weapons, areas) had to be rewritten for the Wii.
Gamecube to Wii, on the other hand, would cost less (hence the lower prices for GC to Wii ports), due to system similarities, but would still require some work. Even if you don't have to rewrite code, the Wii by itself has significal differences to the GC (since it's not in backwards compatibility mode). Any unforseen incompatibilities need to be tested and adjusted for. That's why Nintendo has a team dedicated to their Play on the Wii games, to ensure their quality (but that does not mean they are somehow taking resources away from original projects; Nintendo has stated they are working on more games, just none are ready to announce yet).
I can't get too specific, because I'm just a hopeful game designer, while someone like Twestern certainly can give specifics.
What I do know is that what ports save the most is time (and any extra costs from that). The game is already completed. The developers know what they are going to make. That is the real reason ports come out faster than big budget original games. And since developers had to do a quick turnaround to support the Wii, ports came first because that's how it works. It's also why handhelds get loads of ports at the beginning, and then games shift to original games later on. Plus, as stated on that thread, they are porting established hits*, which makes sense, since that is why most ports are made, ever since the Golden Age of gaming.
* That's also why the one thing Twestern was way off of was when he insisted Capcom would see porting RE5 to the Wii as a detriment. It would have to have flopped for Capcom to see the cost as a reason not to port.
Then there is the most expensive kind of port. If the system is not powerful enough to handle the assets, you have to start them all over. It still doesn't take as long as an orignal game, but as stated on the main thread, those can cost as much as an original game.
I don't just mean CTYD. I also mean Resident Evil 4 on the PS2. The developers admitted they had to remake all the graphics just to fit on the PS2. Even though the main issue was lack of texture compression, it wasn't as though they could stick all the texture files in photoshop and reduce the color depth. Textures do not work that way. There was also a matter of reducing polygon count in some models, so some of the textures had to be redrawn to fit over those (such as with JJ, the bandoleers were on the same textures as the torso instead of separate textures on extra polygons). Thus even the PS2 version cost a lot, just nowhere near as much as the original version of RE4, since it didn't have three versions thrown out before the final version (and why any port of RE5 will not cost as much as the current version, since it wouldn't take so long to develop).
On a similar note, Okami was ported with most of the development documentation missing, which required remaking most of the game. No wonder it was sold with a higher price tag than RE4 Wii edition.
Which brings us to DR CTYD. First of all, I am not claiming it's a good game. If "not a cheap cash-in = good" then that would mean Battlefield Earth is a good movie, because it was not only not a cash-in, but a labor of love John Travolta spent years trying to get made.
I'm just stating if you're going to criticize it, at least use things that are true. It's the same as claiming Wii games only sell if they are first party. NPD bebunked that months ago, therefore that claim is BS. Same with CTYD. They had to remake almost all of the game (and likely did the FMVs solely to try to keep from going over budget, the same way RE4 on the PS2 did). Again, the list of things Twestern gave apply to this game as well. It was not a cheap cash-in.
As for why the graphics don't look good, there are still 4 possible reasons:
- They money wasn't spent that well. It's possible, but not certain, and would just replace one unproven criticism with another.
- It's impossible to look like RE4. It's one of the most common criticisms of the graphics and still a fallacy. The engine is the only thing they have in common (not even zombies, and the gameplay just comes with the engine). The level design, scale, and art direction are not the same. You have a clean, polished mall, that is designed to allow free movement from radically different shops (about a dozen per area), while having loads of enemies (and even reviews knocking the game admit the zombie count at its highest is a sizeable fraction of DR 360) versus areas designed to have a dirty, decaying look (save for a few areas), that is designed to allow linear movement from point A to point B (with a couple exceptions), while even involving some streaming for the larger areas (you can tell if you defeat Salazar's right hand in the area farthest from the elevator, and there is a short black screen when it switches to the elevator going active).
- DR 360 is not a graphical powerhouse. Those thinking it is forget that when it launched, it's graphical competition was mainly Call of Duty 2. After Gears of War, we got the 360's first graphical showcase game, while DR is a scale showcase game (guess which one RE4 is). Plus Capcom said outright the graphics had to be scaled down to fit all they were trying to do. Polygon count was stated to be 3 million per frame tops (not the same as per second), which means the Wii version had to cut that down even further. And someone on another site estimated that typical character polygon count was 6,000 on the 360, and 1500 on the Wii. Since the Wii is estimated to be about a quarter the power of the 360 at best, that's kind of what it should be.
- It's not as though HD to Wii ports are the norm. And this is the first showcase game to be ported to the Wii. It's going to take a lot more than that for the Wii versions to start looking appreciably like the HD versions. You saw a similar with with GC/Xbox to PS2 ports. Compare the PS2 version of Splinter Cell to RE4. One was an early port (the sequels evidently didn't bother updating the engine), and the other is a port when Capcom knew both systems inside and out. That's clearly not the case with CTYD.
Now again, this is not claiming you have to like it now. There are plenty of reasons to dislike it based on actual facts about the game:
- No camera will disappoint those who loved it.
- No jumping and some paths cut off (but not areas) will disappoint those used to a more sandbox nature.
- Two buttons for actions. I might get used to that, but what the hell?
- Since zombie count is reduced at the beginning to make a difficulty curve (which is more of an elevated valley on the 360) some will not like having to beat half the game until they can start mowing down clusters of zombies instead of small handfuls.
- Doesn't solve every issue with the 360 version. AI for survivors and enemies is barely improved, and there are still a lot of escort missions.
But back to the main point of the thread. If you hear of another port, it's not to try to get some quick cash, unless the original game was (I think you know which games I mean). The rest are because developers are trying to find a game to fit the Wii, and they think those games would go well with it (see the praise Godfather Blackhand Edition got).
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
