|
It's
funny, because when you talk to people culturally, there are people who like
LA, and a lot of Northern
Californians
hate LA, and make a big deal out of
it. I think they're a bit melodramatic about it, if you ask me... but it does
go back and forth. And I have a friend who works at another LA studio. He
wanted to stay in LA so much that he wasn't looking at Northern California studios.
LM: I think when they think about it
short-term, they're more inclined to do it; if they have a really good job
opportunity in another city, they go, "Oh, I'm going to go up there for a
few years and have a great job, and then I'll move back." So even if they
have that bias, they will at least do it for a while.
And
this might be a personal question, but what drives you to -- without getting
into the politics of anything awkward -- to want to leave a studio like
Insomniac, that's proven and tested, and move into a new opportunity at a
smaller, new startup?
LM: Well that's exactly it, right; you just
phrased it right there. I mean, I loved Insomniac; I loved working there. The
people there are just excessively competent, amazing people. I loved working
with Ted Price.
But, you know, new opportunities are always
exciting to people. And the idea of going out and starting up a studio and
trying something new is pretty exciting. I felt that at the time, it was time
for me to move on and try new things, and see what happened -- but it is certainly
no slight on Insomniac or anything for
High Impact that I did so, because they're both great studios.
I
mean, this is going to sound excessively fawning, especially to people on the
internet, who can't understand what I'm trying to say, but I think it would be
hard to slight Insomniac.
LM: Well, Insomniac's products put gameplay
ahead of anything else, and I think they've done really well with that, so we
try to make our gameplay also as polished as we can, because I think that's a
great way to go.
When
you're working on like a PSP game, coming from a background of doing all those
PS2 games, is the technology that you use now basically the same stuff you were
using to create the PS2 games, or did you have to develop new technology
solutions to make PSP games?
LM: Well, we had to do a different engine.
We individually developed a PSP engine and a PS2 engine, but a lot of our
internal tools were the same. We use Maya for gameplay placement, and a number
of other things. So there was some variation, but mainly on the hardcore
technology side.
So
you built the original engine for Size
Matters. I'm assuming you used it again for Secret Agent Clank?
LM: Yes.
And
then when you moved the games to PS2, how did that work?
LM: We had to write an original engine for
the PlayStation 2, and then we started moving over our gameplay, and then
adjusting anything that needed to be adjusted, to take advantage of the PlayStation
2's advantages.
And
see that's kind of funny, because, I guess if you had been under contract with
Insomniac and Sony to do a PS2 Ratchet
game at the outset, you might have been able to use the main series engine.
LM: Insomniac has amazing engine people; I
mean, they've done great stuff, and more importantly, they've poured a great
deal of time into their engine, which makes it very attractive. At the same
time, we have a really veteran engine
team, so they're really excited about their own engine challenges.
|
Personally I think the question of using internal tech vs licensing depends completely on your team size, time line, and experience levels of the individual members. It's not just a simple "yes" or "no". Toss a bunch of juniors in a room and the only engine you'll get is whatever they could piece together from some tutorial website. So put a lot of thought into making your own tech before committing. However, a senior team with a solid plan might be able to wow you. I doubt that Shadow of the Colossus or Okami could have been achieved easily with some pre-packaged engine. Not impossible, just not as easily.
I mean is it just a coincidence that Renderware has gone and the PS3 software catalogue is floundering with a large number of big budget average titles?
Apart from that I bet for those developers who claim they have built their engine and tools from the ground up actually started their engine many, many years ago when it was commercially viable and evolved it over many, many projects, refactoring at every step - DICE I bet sits firmly in this camp.
If there exists a reasonable solution to a problem already then it’s an engineer’s prerogative to at least use it as a starting point: why reinvent the wheel? An engineer should be aiming at all times to engineer themselves out of a job i.e. to solve the problem at hand. Granted we won't be able to do that for many years (if ever) because of the constantly shifting foundations and goals but we should certainly be moving in the direction of older industries for example structural engineers in the building industry where they’ve got to the point that the engineers are contracted in to solve a few specific problems with a project.
Today if you're starting a game and haven't got a low level game engine (graphics system, physics system, sound system etc) / high level game engine (game framework, A.I. system, scripting system etc) and/or tools pipeline (conversion tools, build system, game editor etc) in place - THEN BUY AT LEAST SOME OF IT IN!