• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku: Why games get delayed (statements from developers)

DocSeuss

Member
Laypeople not understanding the process is a huge problem. Like... people want me to include first person character models in the game I'm working on, but the amount of effort required to actually do that is nuts. We'd need to sync up our first and third person animations across the network, our first person animations wouldn't actually be based on a human skeleton (see the crysis 2 bendyguy gif for what that actually looks like), and we'd need to get our entire cosmetic system attached to that. Which, hey, this is totally doable when your team numbers in the hundreds, but ours is less than 10 people. So it's an incredibly challenging process.

Being able to explain that to laypeople is a big issue.

We're like... maybe two weeks out from showing the game to publishers, but I think if we tried showing it to Kickstarter backers, a lot of people would be like "what? this looks bad," because most people don't know what greyboxing is. So I'm hesitant to do a Kickstarter because the reason we need money is, in large part, because we need to hire artists. Fans will just look at the game and go "oh, no demo? Mighty no 9 happened so no Kickstarter can be trusted. no buy."

There's all sorts of crazy stuff out there that laypeople don't really get. Look at all the people who don't understand that content sometimes gets cut from games. Back in the day, that meant it was just gone (KOTOR 2 Droid Planet, for instance), but that's changed now thanks to DLC. But nooo. Fans gotta get all conspiracy theoried about how stuff got cut for nefarious purposes.

I think talking about the realities of game creation is important. Some folks may think we all know about it, but that's demonstrably untrue.

So they made a worse piece then extra credits about the exact same topic? Either rather unlucky or uncreative writers.

Sounds like someone didn't read the article. Extra Credits is a joke. At best.
 

Calabi

Member
Laypeople not understanding the process is a huge problem. Like... people want me to include first person character models in the game I'm working on, but the amount of effort required to actually do that is nuts. We'd need to sync up our first and third person animations across the network, our first person animations wouldn't actually be based on a human skeleton (see the crysis 2 bendyguy gif for what that actually looks like), and we'd need to get our entire cosmetic system attached to that. Which, hey, this is totally doable when your team numbers in the hundreds, but ours is less than 10 people. So it's an incredibly challenging process.

Being able to explain that to laypeople is a big issue.

We're like... maybe two weeks out from showing the game to publishers, but I think if we tried showing it to Kickstarter backers, a lot of people would be like "what? this looks bad," because most people don't know what greyboxing is. So I'm hesitant to do a Kickstarter because the reason we need money is, in large part, because we need to hire artists. Fans will just look at the game and go "oh, no demo? Mighty no 9 happened so no Kickstarter can be trusted. no buy."

There's all sorts of crazy stuff out there that laypeople don't really get. Look at all the people who don't understand that content sometimes gets cut from games. Back in the day, that meant it was just gone (KOTOR 2 Droid Planet, for instance), but that's changed now thanks to DLC. But nooo. Fans gotta get all conspiracy theoried about how stuff got cut for nefarious purposes.

I think talking about the realities of game creation is important. Some folks may think we all know about it, but that's demonstrably untrue.



Sounds like someone didn't read the article. Extra Credits is a joke. At best.

But the public not knowing how game development works isnt really the issue here. Its game developers or the publisher/people announcing the games not knowing how game development works. They really shouldn't announce games until the hard problems are solved and all that remains is to clean up things. I dont see much benefit to announcing them so early, unless their pimping for funds and then they've got all kinds of problems.
 
But the public not knowing how game development works isnt really the issue here. Its game developers or the publisher/people announcing the games not knowing how game development works. They really shouldn't announce games until the hard problems are solved and all that remains is to clean up things. I dont see much benefit to announcing them so early, unless their pimping for funds and then they've got all kinds of problems.
Your comment is like literally a case in point disproving your first statement, especially as a response to the post you quoted. That you can boil things down to 'game devs don't know how game dev works', 'hard problems', and 'cleaning up things' comes across quite uninformed about the nature of game development.
 
Im entirely understanding of the reason, i just wish publishers werent so pre order happy and would wait to announce the date until they knew for sure. Fractured but whole for instance im sure has many legitimate reasons for its long delay, but it makes ubisoft look like ass hats for announcing that it was coming out december 2016. Ffxv having a big event to announce its september release it only to delay it to the end of november was really
Embarassing for square enix. I dont want to know a date basically until its nearly done, like fallout 4 and re 7
 

oneils

Member
Red Dead Redemption 2 getting delayed was not that surprising at all to many here. Why is that? Why is it that we as consumers knew way before hand that Rockstar would most likley delay their game? Because we know release announcements are sometimes VERY disingenuous coming from certain companies. I can understand unforeseen circumstances delaying a product but sometimes it boils down to some of these companies just outright being very disingenuous to consumers.

We didn't know, we assumed based on past results.
 
I think in general the more interesting question as a dev is "why does the public care", and "should they?". Insofar as public speculation about the reality of game development is almost always wrong, what value does it have? In a consumer relationship, why is it important or relevant? Is this pattern similar in other industries like film or automobiles? Why or why not?

But yes it often feels like a miracle that anything ships given the insane complexity involved in development, especially in the AAA space where I work.
 
I think in general the more interesting question as a dev is "why does the public care", and "should they?". Insofar as public speculation about the reality of game development is almost always wrong, what value does it have? In a consumer relationship, why is it important or relevant? Is this pattern similar in other industries like film or automobiles? Why or why not?
Same reason why the public watches behind the scenes features on blu ray, or set featurettes showing off stuntwork, or discussions with script writers and cinematographers

Games are just another creative medium like film, TV, music, etc. and interested people like to know about and learn about the inner workings and talent that makes it all come together
 
Same reason why the public watches behind the scenes features on blu ray, or set featurettes showing off stuntwork, or discussions with script writers and cinematographers

Games are just another creative medium like film, TV, music, etc. and interested people like to know about and learn about the inner workings and talent that makes it all come together

Sorry, I suppose I'm more interested in the 'in situ' discussions that happen on enthusiast sites during development, than discussing this post facto as a sort of "how it's made" approach. The former occurs far more frequently than the latter in my experience (unsurprisingly, given reticence to actually discuss behind the scenes details, but also because I think the answers are so complicated in general they are not amenable to popular discussion).
 

gtvdave

Member
The biggest issue of our time are (often crowd-funded) devs which have to reveal their game very early, sometimes during pre-production. They sometimes ask for less and get a lot more, which increases their ambition and they never land on both feet. Promises and stretch goals put layers upon layers of complexity while producers try to figure out if the additional cash even covers the expenses of extra features. Often the quality of the main features suffers unless devs realize that all these stretch goals should have been added as DLC instead, but sometimes it is just too late. The damage has been done.

Another problem that presents itself during development is the infamous feature creep. It begins with a wave of technical additions that are crucial to executing the key features. The importance of these "little things" usually flies over the head of designers who make things up without considering the technical requirements of their on-the-paper creations. It becomes really bad when the little things grow into solutions that break what is already been done, but now has to be re-built due to systematic changes. That is where production hell begins if you are not careful enough during the planning process.

What happens a lot is the late realization that a feature or two need much more care and resources because it is being used throughout the game. Data driven systems are left behind for a rather primitive solution. I call it "the forgotten pillar that should have been golden". If it does not work and is not pretty enough to keep the attention of the player, he gets bored enough to ignore other not-really-imporant golden features. Spending more time to polish this one adds a few months of development on top of it all.

The industry still needs to figure out how to construct big games without having to climb a steep hill and triggering an avalanche that forces devs make three steps back.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
borges said:
Yeah, project managers.
I don't want to derail this into what particular job disciplines actually "should" be responsible for, but no, I don't think production staff is responsible for that, although they ARE accountable for the schedules.

MikeE21286 said:
That's why crunch exists, to account for commitments that can't be met (... or predictions that were wrong).
Trying to describe it as an oversimplified singular issue like that is a major part of why the problem exists in the first place. At least in tech - crunch is a systemic issue that manifests and amplifies itself across all levels of organization - including the staff that complains the most about it, and there are no silver bullet solutions.
In many organizations (some of which I've also worked in), the culture of overtime is deeply embedded in people's mindsets, and if you're (un)lucky enough to spend most of your career in such environments it's not difficult to see how you come out on the other side unable to see it done any other way.
 
Top Bottom