Whoever thinks delaying a game or more development time = a higher quality/better game is an idiot.
No you're an idiot for arguing something that is objective vs something subjective while arguing something no one argued in the first place.
No where did anyone say its guaranteed to be some classic, but all a rush job does is give you that game in a messier state. More time will clean up some loose ends, will fix performance on some level. Those games going through dev hell? Rushing them isn't going to fix them. Rushing things is always bad, delaying something has gee I don't know Naughty Dog's games have been delayed before, Rockstars games have been delayed, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Blizzards's games, and last I checked there was a lot of quality involved in those entries.
Now compared that to the rush job that was MCC or Battlefield 4 and you had a broken, unplayable mess. Next time understand context.
MCC is playable. Should have come out without MP, so people can stop bitching about it.
Playable now, I'm saying when it launched it was a mess. Why? because it was rushed. And it shouldn't have come without MP, it's fucking Halo, it's a damn MP franchise, it should have MP. If you are going to "remaster" a game, fine, remaster all of it. I don't want 50% of the game, I want all of the game. But they wanted to release a product in November blah blah blah because the word "anniversary" meant more than making a finished product.
Everything. Games many years ago could be made fast because there were less 'parts', less to do, not as much tech to be implemented. The more complex your software gets, the longer it takes to get made and fully tested. TC wants games made in a year or less, I don't want mass produced bullshit, we have enough fast food gaming.
That is a very similar point to one he was making, no? Hence why your post was pointless. Software is more complex now, but as a result, development times are too long. How can we improve development times? Can we improve development times? That's what he wanted to discuss. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and answer those questions for us?
I did answer already. Dev time isnt taking too long, if anything it's too fast. We see garbage spewed out by AAA devs year after year. Those who take their sweet time can eventually craft an amazing product and it shows they care. However you have the likes of CoD and AC and sports games with no innovation, poor construction, and just a shiny coat of paint because they have no time for anything else, they want it out the door fast to scoop up the cash on day one for the masses who eat it up. I dont own consoles however, so I'm not the one starved for content waiting for games to release.
At my IT office we have saying: "My work is good, fast, and cheap. Please pick two."
You didn't answer, you stated what everyone already knew. We know there are more 'parts', hence why development teams are much larger than they used to be. The reason AAA devs still output garbage is because of the reason the TC wanted to discuss. Development time is too long, therefore 'AAA' devs who want to make a larger profit won't spend the amount of times the games require to reach 'AAA' standard. CoD and AC are also very bad examples. Unfortunately, you seem very confused.
Everything. Games many years ago could be made fast because there were less 'parts', less to do, not as much tech to be implemented. The more complex your software gets, the longer it takes to get made and fully tested. TC wants games made in a year or less, I don't want mass produced bullshit, we have enough fast food gaming.
That is a very similar point to one he was making, no? Hence why your post was pointless. Software is more complex now, but as a result, development times are too long. How can we improve development times? Can we improve development times? That's what he wanted to discuss. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and answer those questions for us?
I did answer already. Dev time isnt taking too long, if anything it's too fast. We see garbage spewed out by AAA devs year after year. Those who take their sweet time can eventually craft an amazing product and it shows they care. However you have the likes of CoD and AC and sports games with no innovation, poor construction, and just a shiny coat of paint because they have no time for anything else, they want it out the door fast to scoop up the cash on day one for the masses who eat it up. I dont own consoles however, so I'm not the one starved for content waiting for games to release.
At my IT office we have saying: "My work is good, fast, and cheap. Please pick two."
You didn't answer, you stated what everyone already knew. We know there are more 'parts', hence why development teams are much larger than they used to be. The reason AAA devs still output garbage is because of the reason the TC wanted to discuss. Development time is too long, therefore 'AAA' devs who want to make a larger profit won't spend the amount of times the games require to reach 'AAA' standard. CoD and AC are also very bad examples. Unfortunately, you seem very confused.
waiting 2 years for a game is long? Oh good lord....im done.
Everything. Games many years ago could be made fast because there were less 'parts', less to do, not as much tech to be implemented. The more complex your software gets, the longer it takes to get made and fully tested. TC wants games made in a year or less, I don't want mass produced bullshit, we have enough fast food gaming.
That is a very similar point to one he was making, no? Hence why your post was pointless. Software is more complex now, but as a result, development times are too long. How can we improve development times? Can we improve development times? That's what he wanted to discuss. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and answer those questions for us?
I did answer already. Dev time isnt taking too long, if anything it's too fast. We see garbage spewed out by AAA devs year after year. Those who take their sweet time can eventually craft an amazing product and it shows they care. However you have the likes of CoD and AC and sports games with no innovation, poor construction, and just a shiny coat of paint because they have no time for anything else, they want it out the door fast to scoop up the cash on day one for the masses who eat it up. I dont own consoles however, so I'm not the one starved for content waiting for games to release.
At my IT office we have saying: "My work is good, fast, and cheap. Please pick two."
You didn't answer, you stated what everyone already knew. We know there are more 'parts', hence why development teams are much larger than they used to be. The reason AAA devs still output garbage is because of the reason the TC wanted to discuss. Development time is too long, therefore 'AAA' devs who want to make a larger profit won't spend the amount of times the games require to reach 'AAA' standard. CoD and AC are also very bad examples. Unfortunately, you seem very confused.
waiting 2 years for a game is long? Oh good lord....im done.
Once commercial game engines (Unity, Unreal, etc.) don't require too much more advancement to satisfy consumers + are easy to use + crossplatform support is streamlined.
@TheEroica: problem there is that people will start shouting for it. if nintendo had still not announced the zelda wiiu (which they wouldnt until next year given the current state of the game) then there would be hell to pay. same with uncharted which still wouldnt be announed or if MS didnt show halo until much closer to launch.
its impossible to please everyone with game announcements. some will be delighted to know its coming while others will be frustrated that its years away.
anyway 3 years is the correct development time for most good AAA games (at the end of the day the time depends on the game too). 4 years for something really ambitous. 5 years....thats pushing it (probably a sign of development hell). as long as its kept within these time frames (3-4 years) its grand.
Log in to comment