Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack Sounds Off

Denis Dyack is primarily known for two things. As the CEO of Canadian game developer Silicon Knights, he's known for making the popular and critically acclaimed title Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem and other games such as Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes, Dark Legions and Blood Omen: The Legacy of Kain. He's also known for being an outspoken critic of many aspects of the video game industry, from mammoth trade shows like E3 to massive marketing hype.

[VirtualGamer]

In particular his perspective on consoles. I guess from a developers point of view a console is like a movie camera for the film industry. Having a standard that everyone uses to create movies is nice. So having one console or console standard would allow developers to focus on one game rather then making 2 or 3 different versions. I can see that being a plus from a developers point of view however I don't see if curing the problem of their being to many crap games out there though as there are still a bunch of crap movies released every year as well.

I still not sure will ever see it or that really we want to see it as its competition that drives the industry but then again as he pointed ot if its a 3 way split then no one is going to be happy. I guess I am going to have to think about it more.

[highps3]

There are so many garbage games.. Out of 200+ xbox 360 games how many are really all that great? Same with Ps3?

To me Id rather get 5 good games a year then 100's of garbage ones.

PC gamer all the way. I learned one thing from this generation and thats consoles are horrible and get dated so fast whats the point...

[Figboy]

i especially loved his response to the question:

Q: "Rob Wright: With the amount of time that's spent designing lifelike graphics for one character, are game developers forced to spend less time on other elements like story, dialogue, music and voice acting?"

A: "Absolutely not. Everything gets cranked up to these high-production value levels. It goes back to the size of the teams. On Legacy of Kain, I started out as the lead programmer and then became the director because that's what was needed. Same with Eternal Darkness. Now with Too Human, we have two art directors, a director of audio, a director of content, a director of technology and a director of game design. And each director has a number of people that report to them. The Silicon Knights philosophy is to take the five areas - art, content, technology, gameplay and audio - and bring them all up to the highest level possible, which will create a game that's bigger than the sum of its parts."

i took this to mean that just because your game has good graphics, it doesn't mean that they don't take equal, if not more, consideration for the gameplay. basically, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. which is something i've been saying ever since certain fans of certain game consoles have decided to hoist the tired "gameplay over graphics" banner.

if a developer really cares about delivering a quality gaming experience, they will. simple as that.

i also like his thoughts on their being one console in the generation(s) to come, with set specs and technology, so, in the end, the developers and gamers will benefit, as there will be no split focus when it comes to developing titles, and, like the film industry, the focus will then become creating a great piece of entertainment, and truly compete on a creative level. as it is now, developers and publishers are so focused on just getting a game to work on a GBA, X Box, GC, PS2, PSP, Wii, 360, PS3, PC.

if MS, Sony, and Nintendo ever kissed and made up, i'd like this single game console to be broken down as this:

Sony manufactures the hardware, and decides on the tech specs. my reasons for this are simple: they have proven, especially in this current generation, that they can craft a very reliable piece of high end consumer technology, with bleeding edge technology for a fair price (including Wi Fi, Blu Ray, Memory Stick readers and HDMI in one box is what has driven the cost up to $600, it's not just on Blu Ray's shoulders). Sony has also shown that they command very good foresight in what they choose to put in their technology (CD into the PS1, DVD into the PS2, and, ultimately, Blu Ray in the PS3). They handle the hardware.

Microsoft would cover the online network, and gui. they've shown that they know user interface software and online like no other in the business, and though i may have my issues with Windows, and i don't like the idea of paying for Live, there's no denying that they know what they're doing.

Nintendo would move to software only, bringing their classic franchises and characters to the table, which is guaranteed to rope in their older fans, and young ones.

each company brings a lot of first and 2nd party talent to the table also, so ultimately the quality of games from their houses would rise, as, to really make some profit, it would all fall on the software (which is the most important factor to us gamers: the games), since they are splitting the profit on the actual gaming console itself.

they'd step up their game significantly, and even 3rd party developers would be forced to innovate and reach into their creative pools to stay alive and be competitive.

smaller devs would make smaller, downloadable content (a mix between free and priced), making names for themselves, maybe getting the attention of bigger devs that will back them financially to make better games, or at least marketing muscle so we'll know about their smaller titles.

personally, i'm sick of this console war. we b*tch about the price of the consoles, but in truth, we're going to get all 3 eventually. that's $600 + $400 + $250. $1250 total.

i don't know about you, but i'd much rather shell out, say, $500-$600 and be able to play Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo games all on one box.

the games are the reason we're gamers, hardware is insignificant, ultimately.

one console doesn't mean less competition, as it will fall on the various game development studios to truly 1-up each other to stay alive, and overall game quality would rise.

i'm sick of all 3 companies and their incessant d*ck measuring contest, and wouldn't mind one bit if we were forced to root for actual GAMES instead of companies and consoles.

one console = we ALL win, from publishers, to developers, and of course, gamers.

*edit - to highps3, the reason why we prefer consoles is because we don't, and shouldn't have to, upgrade our hardware every few months to play the latest games.

a good movie shot on a low-quality camera is still a good movie.

a good game made on the PS2, Wii, or PSP and DS is still a good game, even though the 360 and PS3 are power-houses.

sure, the 360 and PS3 will be considered outdated by PC standards due to constant advancements, but what the 360 and PS3 offer is amazing on a technical level.

i'd much rather drop $600 every 5-7 years, than $600 every 6 to 8 months. the latest video cards are nearly $600 ALONE, not considering things like the processor, motherboard, case, and all else.

with console's becoming more like affordable, high end PCs, the days of the gaming PC, i feel, are really numbered.

taking into account, here in the US, at least, that the cost of living is getting higher, and minimum wage isn't nearly enough to sustain that living, the average gamer can't afford to constantly upgrade their PC every few months.

i couldn't play the Splinter Cell: Double Agent demo because my Radeon X850 Pro didn't have 3.0 shaders. the damn video card cost me $300 when i bought it last year, and now they tell me i'll have to shell out more than that so i can play Splinter Cell? no wonder most gamers will get the console versions instead.

i like PCs, i really do, but my PS3 supports mouse and keyboard also, and last i heard, Unreal on the PS3 will support mouse and keyboard as well, so the advantages of the PC are getting less and less with each successive generation. sure, they'll always have the cutting edge advantage, but gamers have demonstrated time and time again that we'll settle for quality, current technology, over expensive cutting edge anyday (much to the PS3's lamentations for the time being. hang in there, big guy, your price will come down soon enough, and your library will mature).

[power of Green]

Read this a few hours ago this Guy has logic and speaks his mind.

I just wondering why people post what was in the original story/news/interview.

I wouldn't try and mix D.D.'s logic with fanboy rants I too! agree with D.D. but i think the 360 and MS's vision should be the Main console/stradigy because in my opinion 360/MS is going to revolutionize gaming as we know it!; as they have already done, MS has shaped the industry and and has everybody else playing catch up(copied features and design choices! all in this generation(HDD, DDL, DLC, Guide interface software , Multi tasking functions etc.) and designing their consoles like the Xbox and the 360 and i'm not talking about a simple cable/port(HDMI) I mean come on!; If the Wii came out with component cables(it might have them now) that wouldn't be copying anybody but if a campany copies a brain stormed Idea like Motion well thats stealing innovations.

[Hayabusa 117]

I agree with benefits of having universal technology in all the consoles, but not in having just one console shared by all three companies: basically, they could charge us anything they want, and the best we could do, is stop playing video games, which I certainly don't want to do.

For some one who says they're going to buy all 3 consoles, it's easy to simply want an all-in-one console, but it's going to be expensive. $600 console? Many people brought Wii simply because they cannot afford a PS3: even the 360 is too expensive for allot of people.

And what if another company wanted to break into the games industry? It would be too difficult to with three companies making the one single console.

And then of course, there is the problem of Philosophy. Some gamers prefer Microsoft's approach to gaming: others prefer Sony. I like the 360 pad the best: PS2 veterans would prefer the dual shock layout. Meanwhile, Nintendo want to innovate with some weird wacky new control scheme.

Having universal technology across all platforms would be better for devs, and would benefit us gamers as well. But I think each console should have competition.

If you're going to buy all three consoles, then it really isn't a problem for you. If you can't, you're going to have to make a choice, but at least that choice gives you the opportunity to enjoy the games. I also think we've got a pretty good selection of consoles to choose from right now, don't you?

[VirtualGamer]

Ok I have though about this and after reading the comments have come to this conclusion.

1. I don't see one console. The reason is simple. I honestly can't see Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo coming to an agreement so the only way it would end up this way is if one became so dominant that the other 2 could not make any money and had to drop out.

2. PC has had a standard configuration and yet we have many different manufactures. Add to this they have parts that can be upgraded that the range in processing power and graphics are huge. PC developers don't have this euphoria that this guy thinks would come from having one standard. They also still suffer from games being created that are crap.

I think a better solution would be for developers to start making multiplatform games that play on dedicated servers adn are themselves crossplatform. MMOG's are just getting into this but I see it becoming the way of the future. How great it would be to be able to play a game online that has different platforms but the same game? SOE first did this with EverQuest. It first came out on PC and then they made a version to run on Apple computers. They are currently making 4 MMOG's that will be able to run on PC's and PS3. I am pretty sure MS has done similar things as well. The next step for developers would be to make games like this but it can be played on PC, Xbox 360 or PS3. I am leaving Nintendo out simply because their system is not at the power level needed to be on par with this idea. That's not to say they could not create one but for now its just not up to doing this.

I truly think this is the answer. It allows console manufactures to continue to push one another and they can still have exclusive games for each one but alot of games could be done this way. How about a Halo MMO where all three platforms could play against one another? SOE did some thing like this with Planetside which is the first MMOFPS.

One of the down side for creating MMO's was the cost. Its about 25 million to make one just for PC which is now about the cost of making a AAA console game. I can't see it being that much more to modify the game to run on multiple consoles.

[Figboy]

you guys have some great points, but my thinking about a universal console from a gamer (and even potential developer's), perspective, is simply that we play video games because of the VIDEO GAMES. that should always be the primary focus.

when various developers and publishers are constantly worrying about making a profit, and having to spread themselves thin resource wise so they can make enough versions of the game to appeal to a wider audience, we, as GAMERS, could be missing out on an otherwise quality gaming experience.

take Activision for example. they suck, but they have some fairly talented developers working for them. Treyarch has great potential, and Neversoft proved their skills way back when, but have gotten worn out thanks to Activision farming out the Tony Hawk series like a cheap whore, as well as their other licensed games.

if they would give their developers the actual TIME and MONEY (and they have plenty of money), to do their thing, the quality of their games would improve exponentially, and they wouldn't have to resort to licensing trickery (ie, people are going to buy the Spider-Man 3 game, regardless of it's quality, because it's Spider-Man. that is fact) to sell their games. the games would be selling on their own merit as quality games.

one console wouldn't mean less competition. it would mean more competition between GAME DEVELOPERS and PUBLISHERS, as they would be forced to make the best games they can to compete for our dollars.

the consoles are inconsequential. sure, we may have our preferences for Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo, but the reason why is because of the GAMES they offer, not the hardware.

if you force them to work under one roof (a single, game console), they'll have to really go at it.

Halo would be forced to be just THAT much better because if not, then gamers will go for something else like Resistance. Mario would have to step up his game or else Ratchet could get more sales.

our fanboy rants and arguments would then revolve around characters and franchises and features, instead of processors, disc drives, and brand loyalty.

i know i miss the days of arguing about whether Mario is better than Sonic. now, it's all tec specs here, yield numbers there. this isn't gaming anymore. it's mutated into some hideous, ugly beast, and it's blood is fanboy rage and spitefullness. this beast needs to be put down. hard.

if we are to ever be taken seriously as a real entertainment media by those that aren't gamers, and maybe don't understand, we need to act like adults, and put behind us petty squabbling about hardware.

a single console could help this.

"but they could charge whatever they want!"

yes. they could. but we don't have to buy it, do we?

sure, we are gamers, it is our pasttime of choice, but we need to start exercising the wonderous thing that is self control.

Sony is learning that, despite the PS3's quality (which i do think it's a quality device, and worth it's price), people will NOT buy something they feel is too far out of it's price range.

they may deny it, but they are seriously considering a price cut.

why else do you think we've been hit with a slew of game announcements and videos lately?

they are testing the waters. seeing if an announcement of Lair here, Little Big Planet there, Heavenly Sword over there, will drum up some sales from those gamers that are interested, but have yet to see some titles that push them over to their side.

sure, there has been great positive reaction to the above game announcements and unvielings, but if by the time they actually launch, sales have not improved, or don't improve once they hit the shelves, i'm expecting them to finally cave and drop the price by $50 to $100, or have it come packed with a AAA title (a Sigma bundle pack would be cool). or do both. drop the price $50, but still pack in a game.

anyway, i got off topic, but my view hasn't changed. i think a single platform is the best way to eliminate confusion from the consumer side, and foster in a new era of game creativity, where game designers and developers will be regarded in the same vein as a Spielberg or Cameron due to their talent and creativity in making amazing game experiences.

i'm tired of arguing about which CONSOLE is better, or who has the best specs. i just want to play some kick@ass video games, and share my enthusiasm and love for said games with my fellow gamers, and even newcomers alike.