Perfect dark for pc Pc#
Perfect dark for pc ps3#

While Gears of War 4 came out on PC before Forza 7, it wasn't nearly as accomplished an engine as what Turn 10 did with Forza 7 on PC. Turn 10 not only did it well, but they also did it while looking good. Just look at how many developers can't do that. The ability to make a game scale seemlessly and well across a large range of disparate hardware is also incredibly impressive, IMO. But talk to most developers and they'll almost always say that making something look good in a screenshot is much easier when you have 16.6 ms per frame than if you only have 8.3 ms per frame. I know others may disagree, and that's fine. Making a 30 FPS game look good on PS3/X360 isn't even remotely as impressive to me as making a 60 FPS game look good on PS3/X360.

And the Gears games on X360 were also 30 FPS, IIRC.

Perfect dark for pc ps3#

Also considering that at a time when they were (still are I guess) competing with Gran Turismo and how close they got to GT's graphics when the latter ran at 30 FPS on PS3 while they ran at 60 FPS on X360. This shows a deep underlying understanding of the hardware. Playground do fantastic work as well, but they are just improving on what Turn 10 has done.ДЇorza 7 was the first AAA effort to get their game running on PC and the scalability of it was phenomenal, even compared to developers who had been working on PC for a long long time. However, you have less control than if the title was mostly in house.

You have more control than if you just paid a 3rd party studio for an exclusive. But then that's why you partner with someone who you believe already has all that handled and you trust their judgement when it comes to who they hire to work on your project. Of course, the flip side is that you don't have direct control over hires or who works for you. Like when a project is starting up or winding down and you don't need all the artists and level designers. And you don't have to wonder what to do with 100's of employees at any given part of development. We'll see how it works out in practice.Д«ut at least in theory this allows you 1st party control while having 3rd party flexibility.

In theory, it seems like a good idea, IMO. studio works to realize that with heavy interaction with the core team. The IP, story, look, everything is determined by your core dev team. Here it's like a 1.5 st/nd? party exclusive. One way to think of it, IMO, is a hybrid between a 1st party exclusive developed internally and a 2nd party exclusive where you hire another studio to make an exclusive for you. But if you have a small core team you can then partner with an RPG specialist dev studio for an RPG and later an FPS specialist dev team for an FPS. If everything is in house, that's quite the pivot. Say you just made an RPG but now you want to make an FPS. Then you look and see who would be best to hire (or partner with) to achieve the vision that the core dev. That means that when you pivot genre's you don't have a large portion of your development house invested in X genre and they are unhappy that you are pivoting to Y genre. You aren't locked into a perceived specialty due to past hires combined with ingrained minset from delivering on X large project. You can quickly change gears, change genres, etc. What I get from this is you keep your core dev team small and agile.