Torque 2D on Xbox
by Dave "Jellybit" Freeman · in Torque Game Builder · 04/04/2005 (11:47 am) · 22 replies
Has anyone here with an Xbox SDK tried or fooled with the idea of porting this engine to Xbox? Keep in mind, I'm not a programmer, but I'm not a stranger to console development. It seems that Torque 2D could be ported without a complete overhaul of the source. Has anyone looked into it? Is it too daunting a task?
#22
Also, I think with Torque 2D's arrival, and ease of use, you'll see more polished games (but this could go both ways, with crappy games). Torque 3D is complex enough that a good number of license owners won't be able to get to that level of quality and polish. Yes, I know it's a lot simpler than buying other 3D engines, but I also think many people buy it, not knowing just how complex it is to use.
All games have to be approved by console manufacturers before they are allowed to be released. If it's not approved, tough. The development company has to fix it up, and make it up to standard, or pack up and go home.
Nintendo charges so much for their SDK that only the big companies can afford to develop for their hardware. What this extended Torque/T2D would do, is help the smaller startup companies (again, with an income limit, like your indie license) have a chance to create console games. If they don't live up to the console manufacturer's standards, they do just as the big companies must do, fix it or leave. Except with this being an extended version of Torque, it's not wasted. They can create a build for PC or Mac.
I personally see very few quality titles made by bigger companies as well, Jeff. People often equate quality with production value. In that area, most console games are "quality" titles. But often, it's just repackaging the same toy in a shinier and louder package. Out of the games created on consoles, I buy what I feel are the true quality titles. And considering the number of console games out there, even though I buy a lot of games, it's a VERY small percentage of the total. And yet, all of the other games had to live up to the console manufacturer's standards. The console manufacturers check to make sure there's nothing that looks too sloppy in the game on top of their technical requirements. So in fact, if the developers were to publish their games with no check of the console manufacturer, you'd see a much LARGER percentage of crap titles.
I don't think the fact that indie games have the same issue exempts the indie developers from being given the same opportunity. Again, if they don't live up to the requirements, either fix it or go elsewhere. This extended Torque/T2D engine would allow indie developers to get their feet in the door. Not open the gate to allow them all to run in. It's a door that has been bolted shut for a long time to indie developers.
I also have ideas of how it'd be cost effective to Microsoft on the approval side, but I won't get into that now.
04/05/2005 (11:14 am)
Yes. That's why Microsoft would have to approve the games made to be released on their platform. Their screening process should take polish and originality into account, I feel. This indie XDK would cost more than Torque alone, of course. But, I'd think of it as an extended version of Torque. That way, your scripting wouldn't go to waste if Microsoft doesn't support it. You could just use the basic features of Torque, and port it to PC/Mac.Also, I think with Torque 2D's arrival, and ease of use, you'll see more polished games (but this could go both ways, with crappy games). Torque 3D is complex enough that a good number of license owners won't be able to get to that level of quality and polish. Yes, I know it's a lot simpler than buying other 3D engines, but I also think many people buy it, not knowing just how complex it is to use.
All games have to be approved by console manufacturers before they are allowed to be released. If it's not approved, tough. The development company has to fix it up, and make it up to standard, or pack up and go home.
Nintendo charges so much for their SDK that only the big companies can afford to develop for their hardware. What this extended Torque/T2D would do, is help the smaller startup companies (again, with an income limit, like your indie license) have a chance to create console games. If they don't live up to the console manufacturer's standards, they do just as the big companies must do, fix it or leave. Except with this being an extended version of Torque, it's not wasted. They can create a build for PC or Mac.
I personally see very few quality titles made by bigger companies as well, Jeff. People often equate quality with production value. In that area, most console games are "quality" titles. But often, it's just repackaging the same toy in a shinier and louder package. Out of the games created on consoles, I buy what I feel are the true quality titles. And considering the number of console games out there, even though I buy a lot of games, it's a VERY small percentage of the total. And yet, all of the other games had to live up to the console manufacturer's standards. The console manufacturers check to make sure there's nothing that looks too sloppy in the game on top of their technical requirements. So in fact, if the developers were to publish their games with no check of the console manufacturer, you'd see a much LARGER percentage of crap titles.
I don't think the fact that indie games have the same issue exempts the indie developers from being given the same opportunity. Again, if they don't live up to the requirements, either fix it or go elsewhere. This extended Torque/T2D engine would allow indie developers to get their feet in the door. Not open the gate to allow them all to run in. It's a door that has been bolted shut for a long time to indie developers.
I also have ideas of how it'd be cost effective to Microsoft on the approval side, but I won't get into that now.
Torque Owner James Killick
-James