Support NeoGAF

[Miles708]

Now, I'll just admit it: I absolutely love big titles with state-of-the-art graphics and animations, the visual spectacle it's the first thing that draws me in games every time.

It helps that the "techical baseline" reached this gen is something that, honestly, wasn't thinkable just some years ago (not only for photorealism, but also for anime style and cartoon style, that is now achievable even by smaller studios).
This is obviously thanks to the hardware, but also to the tools used by the developers; I feel like Unreal Engine 4 alone saved most of the janapese gaming industry at some point.

Still, we're now looking for at least 3 years / 5 years worth effort to make a game, and studios are becoming even bigger.
I know someone has to create the content to fill a game world, and the logic behind simulated experience is becoming extremely complex, but shouldn't be this the point of having third party tools like Unreal Engine 4, Unity, or even more specialized tools like Speedtree or othes that I don't know?

The question is: is there a clear reason why making the average AAA game takes so much time? Why is it becoming increasingly common to have to work 5 years to make a game?
Shouldn't the industry become better at this?
What are all these tools good for, if at the end of the day they're not speeding up the creation process?
Can we hope it'll get better for the next generation?

And ultimately: would you be willing to take some graphical compromises (and stay with the current graphical milestones, or at most a bit better) if it meant halving the developing time and costs of a game?

 

[diffusionx]

The tools ARE speeding up the creation process, just not as fast as the demands for the games are going up.

It will not get better for the next generation. The problem with not advancing is that other companies do, which puts your game at a disadvantage.

 

[xPikYx]

Far are the days where throughout a generation AAA titles were consequential, just think of psone and how many AAA had 2/3 titles, itvall has to do with the higher demand for better and more content a nowadays game has to match to be insigned of the AAA rank

 

[Miles708]

The tools ARE speeding up the creation process, just not as fast as the demands for the games are going up.

It will not get better for the next generation. The problem with not advancing is that other companies do, which puts your game at a disadvantage.

You got a point here, but nowadays even smaller studios reached the technical expertise to make something like Hellblade or A Plague Tale, so is it really necessary to chase graphical advancement with such fervor?
I LOVE cutting-edge graphics but, can this be "enough" ?
If we now got the tools to put out a game with this graphical fidelty in a reasonable time-frame, maybe it's better to chase this trend instead?

On that same note:

Far are the days where throughout a generation AAA titles were consequential, just think of psone and how many AAA had 2/3 titles, itvall has to do with the higher demand for better and more content a nowadays game has to match to be insigned of the AAA rank

Question: would you guys be satisfied to have, for example, Horizon: Zero Dawn 2 with close to the first game technical power, but with double the amount of content/polish/gameplay systems ?

 

[Airola]

1) Making more detailed graphics and animations take a lot of time. Not only the actual creation of them but increased complexity makes test builds slower to make. Remember when Nintendo got into HD and were surprised how much more development time it took. Jumping from SD to HD alone delayed all Nintendo's games.
2) Game testing takes tons of time too.
3) Without these engines it would take even longer than it now takes to make a game.

I don't care about graphical fidelity. I wouldn't mind if 3D games still looked like PS1/PS2 games at best. Most people seem to care though so that's why the developers give priority to trying to use the engine powers for graphically advanced things.

 

[ksdixon]

The gameplay has bottomed out to where we're essentially playing PS3 games with better graphics, still.

Personally I'd take better AI and smarter enemies or some other form of advancement, over pretty graphics.

 

[Honey Bunny]

Ambition will scale with tech. Let's not hold people back.

 

[deriks]

A pro guy could do this animation in less than an hour:

But a pro guy takes at least double the time to do that:

Now compare whole stages, mechanics, items, effects, sound... That's why we need more people and more time with AAA games

 

[diffusionx]

You got a point here, but nowadays even smaller studios reached the technical expertise to make something like Hellblade or A Plague Tale, so is it really necessary to chase graphical advancement with such fervor?
I LOVE cutting-edge graphics but, can this be "enough" ?
If we now got the tools to put out a game with this graphical fidelty in a reasonable time-frame, maybe it's better to chase this trend instead?

On that same note:



Question: would you guys be satisfied to have, for example, Horizon: Zero Dawn 2 with close to the first game technical power, but with double the amount of content/polish/gameplay systems ?

Do I want Horizon 2 with AC Odyssey length and system bloat, hell no. But even if I did what do I need a new $500 system for to do that? If Horizon 2 came out with tech similar to the first game they can put it on the PS4.

But also too, it’s not really what I want it is what sells. If your game looks old compared to the other one next to it, the game gets criticized for being “dated” and people flock to the better looking one. It’s just how it goes. Now maybe a dev wants to make a decision to hold back graphically but you need to give a compelling reason as to why (extreme example - Dwarf Fortress). But if you are putting up an old looking TPS next to a new one just cancel it because you’re screwed.

 

[Sander Cohen]

I don’t know but when I played RDR 2, I totally understood why it took them gazillion years to make it. It just shows. And ending credits also show unreal amount of people working on that thing, like a small city.

If you’re not game dev, like we’re not, you probably can’t understand all the things going on behind the scenes, I just know credits have become longer and longer during the years.

Look, standards have become sky-high. So, yes, as they get better tools and technology, so do standards and expectations rise at the same time, slowly but surely. Open-world games will continue to take obscene amount of time to make.

 

[Aidah]

Tools are speeding up the process. In fact, it's practically an impossible task to create such expansive games without them.

Personally, I want better games, not more games. So take all the time you need.

 

[Optimistic Gamer]

Now, I'll just admit it: I absolutely love big titles [...]

I did NOT read "titles" and got really excited about this thread for a minute...

 

[Kikorin]

I guess one of the problem is that right now everything have to be open world and full of filler content to be at least 30hrs long.

I miss the 10hrs single player experience that were common last gens, now looks like every deveper want you to just play its game forever.

That's why I'm playing a lot more indie games, that reached a point where they can be considered "AA" games and usually shows gameplay ideas lot more interesting than triple A games, where the gameplay formula is always recycled because would be too risky to invest huge amount of money on something that is not already tried to death.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

I think it's because graphics are getting more and more complicated and games from the inception of the industry were easier to make.

New assets, new engines, new lighting techniques like PBR/HBAO and ray tracing... all take a lot of time to make. Games using already existing engines is a hard one to guess, though.

 

[Clear]

Its all about complexity.

Unlike movies and other media that are pieced together from numerous small but discrete components, games are like machines. Everything is connected and needs to work seamlessly in tandem. A seemingly completely benign and harmless tweak to one thing can result in weird knock-on effects because some dependency has been impacted.

As games have gotten more complicated the harder its gotten to avoid these sort of issues, its why big open-world games tend to be buggy and unstable because they have tons of game-logic scripts running on top of all the expected systems for a AAA presentation (physics, ai, data streaming, rendering, audio processing, online stuff etc.).

 

[Elder Legend]

As someone who understand how game development works from preproduction to finish and as someone who played games mid development and as someone who created a small school project with a team of 12 people from start to finish back in my university the OP is making cringe. Jesus christ. Lol.

 

[RedVIper]

Graphics are holding us back.

Instead of paying people to create interesting games, with great mechanics and an interesting world, companies spend tons of money on graphics, making sure every butthole has a billion polygons.

 

[Moogle11]

Far are the days where throughout a generation AAA titles were consequential, just think of psone and how many AAA had 2/3 titles, itvall has to do with the higher demand for better and more content a nowadays game has to match to be insigned of the AAA rank

Yep. And prices have been stuck at $60 so it’s not possible to hire enough people to make games with today’s expected AAA graphics, sound, amount of writing and voice acting etc. and enough content that gamers don’t whine about it nit being worth $60.

 

[dan76]

Graphics, animations and world building obviously takes time, but more importantly if you're a game dev you have to decide exactly what it is you want to do first. Even if a designer haves a vision of what they want the game to be there is a lot of trial and error, some things that look amazing in paper might not actually work in game. Ultimately you now have a vast amount of options, and each one has to be decided upon, and each descision has to be tested.

 

[Diddy X]

Isn't it just down to 'more detailed worlds require more work'?

 

[Missingnomer]

The more people you add to a project the longer it takes. Working in a professional environment in any industry means that adding more people = more complicated collaboration, communication, and work flow. The most efficient worker is only as fast at the slowest worker. You could have a genius who can do something in 2 hours but the other guy he is sharing his work load with does it in 4. That will then chain into other people's work on the project. If a video game takes three years to make, it only allows this to happen countless times. It is not a joke when you have meetings and junk you have to do. You waste at least half of the time on meetings doing nothing. AI will take over a lot of the work in the future when it comes to texturing and animation work, but I don't see that being widespread till 2030 or 2035.

 

[rofif]

The tools are so much easier right now and games still take like 5+ years to make.
Last gen we had 3 Gears. 3 uncharteds, 3 mass effects all in 1 gen + many other trilogies. Currently, we've had many games with only 1 entry this gen. Things take a lot of time to make and It was kinda painful to finish God of War and know that sequel won't come for next 5 years... or 7.... The trilogy can easily take 15 years lol

 

[Strider311]

I personally am happy with where graphics are at right now. I do wish that as consoles/PCs get more powerful, instead of continually chasing higher fidelity, the industry would focus on higher framerates and getting games out the god-damned door sooner.

 

[zcaa0g]

Tools don't make a game fun or engaging. That's where the real challenge lies.

 

[Miles708]

As someone who understand how game development works from preproduction to finish and as someone who played games mid development and as someone who created a small school project with a team of 12 people from start to finish back in my university the OP is making cringe. Jesus christ. Lol.

As someone curious about the subject, I would really like to read your opinion and experience, if you're willing to share them of course.

Yep. And prices have been stuck at $60 so it’s not possible to hire enough people to make games with today’s expected AAA graphics, sound, amount of writing and voice acting etc. and enough content that gamers don’t whine about it nit being worth $60.

But shouldn't tools like UE be used exactly to create better games in less time and with less people? I can understand for open world (that must be a nightmare to program), but more classic experiences like The Last of Us 2 and God of War shouldn't really take half a decade to be made.
Also, the 60$ price tag should be compensated by the vastly larger user base videogames reach nowadays.

The more people you add to a project the longer it takes. Working in a professional environment in any industry means that adding more people = more complicated collaboration, communication, and work flow. The most efficient worker is only as fast at the slowest worker. You could have a genius who can do something in 2 hours but the other guy he is sharing his work load with does it in 4. That will then chain into other people's work on the project. If a video game takes three years to make, it only allows this to happen countless times. It is not a joke when you have meetings and junk you have to do. You waste at least half of the time on meetings doing nothing. AI will take over a lot of the work in the future when it comes to texturing and animation work, but I don't see that being widespread till 2030 or 2035.

Thanks, this is a wonderful comment.
Basically, the complexity is not (only) in the tools but in the team management too. That's an aspect I wasn't thinking about.
But again, people have been making games for 30 years now. Shouldn't project management have reached a pretty high level of sophistication, too?

 

[rofif]

I personally am happy with where graphics are at right now. I do wish that as consoles/PCs get more powerful, instead of continually chasing higher fidelity, the industry would focus on higher framerates and getting games out the god-damned door sooner.

Yeah. I play Uncharted 4, Doom 2016, Dark Souls 3 and I don't really think it needs any more. Finally we have games with perfect image quality and last gen everything was jagged

 

[PlayStaytion]

Not just that ,we are actually getting fewer with time , it's just the nature of this business , to meet the demands of new tech without breaking the budget dictates what's already happening.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Every game seems to have weeks/ months of 'crunch', when it shouldn't be necessary. Publishers are probably the biggest cause of delays.

 

[Danjin44]

Games just takes time to make no matter how advance the tools becomes but another side is that developers announce their games too soon when the game haven't started developing the game yet. Its becoming very rare to see announcement similar to Astral Chain and recently Paper Mario.

 

[CobraXT]

part of the reason games now are actually much bigger .. back in the ps1 days you could finish resident evil 2 or 3 in 4 hour and this include ton of backtracking .. new games even the linear ones take 12 to 15 hours .. most of them with no backtraking ..

 

[Wunray]

 

[Wunray]

Now, I'll just admit it: I absolutely love big titles with state-of-the-art graphics and animations, the visual spectacle it's the first thing that draws me in games every time.

Also thought this said titties lmao.

 

[mango drank]

But again, people have been making games for 30 years now. Shouldn't project management have reached a pretty high level of sophistication, too?

To save money, studios often also outsource artwork to cheaper overseas companies--some tedious modeling, texturing, etc. Not sure how much it's done nowadays, but it was definitely a thing back in the day. I'd imagine managing and communicating with overseas companies would slow down production too, both because of the time difference, and because of the language barrier. There are long boring scheduled meetings, lots of minutiae to pore over, etc.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

If you want to make a Castlevania symphony of the night clone you will be able to do it now, pretty quick and with a much smaller team than the original game required.

Even a game like senua's revenge was done by a small studio, it looks very close to a major AAA title.

That will only be more true in the next generation, the tools get better... While games get more and more complex, those with more means will push them further.

 

[OrionNebula]

I did NOT read "titles" and got really excited about this thread for a minute...

So, the logic of this is :

-You clicked on a topic that said ‘’and why do videogames take so much time to make, anyway? Shouldn't current/new tools help with that?’’

-And then you got ‘’really excited’’ because you thought tits were going to be the subject from the OP?

Gotcha

 

[NahaNago]

Because just as new tools help make game development even faster , video game worlds are growing even bigger and more detailed.

 

[Vawn]

As a software engineer who worked on a team creating a single product for many years, it amazes me current AAA video games at production levels of something like God of War or Red Dead Redemption 2 can be made in under a decade.

 

[Moogle11]

But shouldn't tools like UE be used exactly to create better games in less time and with less people? I can understand for open world (that must be a nightmare to program), but more classic experiences like The Last of Us 2 and God of War shouldn't really take half a decade to be made.
Also, the 60$ price tag should be compensated by the vastly larger user base videogames reach nowadays.

Tools help, but if games are going to feel and look unique there still has to be a lot of time spent creating unique assets, customizing engines, building game play systems etc. Otherwise we’d see a ton of games that looked rough similar, lack improvement in animation etc.

Also, while the industry is bigger and revenue way higher, the average big budget AAA game isn't necessarily making more money than AAA games where a couple generations back. There's a ton more competition in the AAA space so those dollars are split among more games than before--not to mention a big chunk of the revenue is DLC and micro transactions.

So while something like GTAV that both sales an insane amount of copies and make a ton of money through MTs, many other AAA games, especially single player ones, are selling a few million copies worn no DLC and many copies sold for less than $60 as most hit $40 or below within a few months.

 

[Optimistic Gamer]

-And then you got ‘’really excited’’ because you thought tits were going to be the subject from the OP?

Gotcha

I live in a world where tits make things better.
Stop being a bitch.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I'm confused about the talking points raised in this thread:

Devs take long time to make games vs 2d/sd era, but they have exponentially more staff now than back then.

If the jump from 2d to 3d and sd to HD doubled the time of development, why do some people think devs will make a game for 150 mil console owners and then double that time on a 4k version for next gen to sell games to, at best, 5 mil owners?

No one has a problem with sequels, see fifa, cod and battlefield. If the original IP is initially turd, the devs/pubs bin it, vs fixing it.

Open world is only getting bigger in the sense of size, not content. Fill a map like marrowind and we will talk. Otherwise devs have fallen between a trap of single player story driven and single player huge world full of time wasting pointless crap. They don't have the resources, time, money, ability, to make interesting games anymore.

IMO, the industry has run before it learned to walk.

 

[BattleScar]

You need only look at internet forums such GAF, Era, Reddit etc. to get a fairly conclusive answer as to why this is this case.

Expectation.

Nowadays people will dismiss video game trailers and entire events and showcases offhand if they don't deliver the dopamine hit everyone in online communities crave.
How do you generate hype, amongst the terminally unhypable.

We've become so entrenched in video game culture that we've forgotten the simple joys of playing videogames. In order to feed that insatiable thirst, games need more budget and more time than ever before.
Its pretty simple.

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

Now, I'll just admit it: I absolutely love big titles with state-of-the-art graphics and animations, the visual spectacle it's the first thing that draws me in games every time.

It helps that the "techical baseline" reached this gen is something that, honestly, wasn't thinkable just some years ago (not only for photorealism, but also for anime style and cartoon style, that is now achievable even by smaller studios).
This is obviously thanks to the hardware, but also to the tools used by the developers; I feel like Unreal Engine 4 alone saved most of the janapese gaming industry at some point.

Still, we're now looking for at least 3 years / 5 years worth effort to make a game, and studios are becoming even bigger.
I know someone has to create the content to fill a game world, and the logic behind simulated experience is becoming extremely complex, but shouldn't be this the point of having third party tools like Unreal Engine 4, Unity, or even more specialized tools like Speedtree or othes that I don't know?

The question is: is there a clear reason why making the average AAA game takes so much time? Why is it becoming increasingly common to have to work 5 years to make a game?
Shouldn't the industry become better at this?
What are all these tools good for, if at the end of the day they're not speeding up the creation process?
Can we hope it'll get better for the next generation?

And ultimately: would you be willing to take some graphical compromises (and stay with the current graphical milestones, or at most a bit better) if it meant halving the developing time and costs of a game?

the tools are there but when devs spend a million a one year "exaggeration" writing stories, graphics and animations games are going to take forever to make. The gameplay isnt improveing and neither is the a.i or environments we pretty much bottomed out in the game play department.

 

[Elder Legend]

As someone curious about the subject, I would really like to read your opinion and experience, if you're willing to share them of

Just because technology moves faster and gets better that doesn't neccesarily means everything is getting easier. Sure, a lot of things to but with new changes new challenges also arise because development constant evolves as the time goes.

Here is what a typical development cycle looks like.

1st - There is the idea phase, where the team comes up with a gameplay loop, prototypes and core mechanics and identify what the genre of the game is. This as you can imagine takes time, because the oubmishers also need to approve the idea because at the end of the day it needs to sell and make $$$. This is a business first and foremost.

2nd - During the idea phase assuming that it does get approved what happens is that the team creates something called a Design Document, yes litterly a document that explains every single mechanics, how it works, what it does and what it's for.

This is a document that everyone refers to on the team, including the programmers and artists because the document includes the theme of the game, artistic visuals and of course for the programmers the core mechanics and they need to understand it so they can code for it. Think of it as a blueprint.

We did this in a university but as you can imagine we had no budget and we only had 3 or 4 months to create a game but the cycle was exactly the same just on a much much smaller scale.

2nd -After the design document is done then production begins. Artist usually have an art director and programmers have their main technical guy that oversees everything else as well. But the art director and programmers director also have a production manager that oversees them. I was an artist on the team, I did 3D modeling which is where you create 3D models for video games as assets and I was prop artist meaning I created 3d models such as weapons, small objects, gadgets and things like that. 3D modeling would be done in Maya or 3ds Max. Cresting 3D models I'd not easy, especially at a high pro level because you have to optimize the triangular count for game engines or otherwise your game will run like shit and your programmers will come and kill you in your sleep for making things difficult for them than it needs to be. Then i also had to do textured which photoshop. Thankfully our game was cartoony so our artstyle was all hand painted in photoshop using wacom tablets.

These models are then given to other people and are imported to game engine and then you have animators who also animate these assets.

Here is an example of a very complex high quality model from Guerulla Games artist. To do something like this constinetly takes years of practice, tons of talent, skill and basically be a master. Bow imagine pumping out models like thisbat a fast pace with high quality in weekly basis.



Long story short, high quality stuff at a very high level take a lot a lot of personal talent and skill both on programming and artist end. These things are very difficult, and when you throw millions and millions of dollars for big AAA 1st party title it then the final product needs to deliver and perform well both in sales and critical acclaim and to do that properly it takes a very long time.

I could go far into more depth but that would take a while to explain. But this should give you an understanding. I didn't even really talk about the half of it.

 

[gundalf]

We have fantastic tools that speed up creation of assets and development of software and this submarket is also getting by the day more competitive.

But all best tools in the world are worthless if the management behind those studios lack behind or in other words: A PC with fast internet won't speed you up as long you still use FAX.

 

[OrionNebula]

I live in a world where tits make things better.
Stop being a bitch.

Whatever helps you go through puberty, buddy


On topic, I’m curious about the claims of the PS5 being super easy (and also immensely time-saving for devs) to work with as a tool, and how this will affect cross-consoles game releases for next gen’s third party games

 

[Elder Legend]

Whatever helps you go through puberty, buddy


On topic, I’m curious about the claims of the PS5 being super easy (and also immensely time-saving for devs) to work with as a tool, and how this will affect cross-consoles game releases for next gen’s third party games

Xbox Series X and PS5 are basically exactly same with a few difference in terms of numbers, I am pretty positive both will be extremely easy to develop for.

 

[unintelligent orange]

I think devs need to reduce the heavy reliance on graphics to sell their games and come up with simple, effective gameplay loops that people want to come back to.

In terms of what could be done to speed development along, I'm surprised no one has created a HIGHLY customizable game engine that takes a lot of the time-consuming grunt work out of programming and creating games by offering high quality pre-built tools that can be used to create any sort of gameplay mechanics imaginable.

If everyone standardized to one engine that, say, was developed by the console manufacturer, that did it all very well, dev time would plummet.

One thing thats annoyed me about the last few gens is it just seems like were getting fewer games (of higher quality, allegedly) at a very slow rate. By the time the consoles lifecycle is done you'll have only ever really seen a handful of decent games. Which doesnt feel good as a consumer investing into a Playstation or Xbox.

Games sell consoles - no doubt about that - but the quantity is lacking. PS2 games had million dollar budgets, yet dev time was like 1-2 years and there were a ton of good games by the end of the console's life span.

For real though, the whole 'cinematic experience' thing really needs to die. I dont want another hot garbage cinematic experience. Give me simpler graphics at like a PS2.5/PS3 level, a fun gameplay loop with good mechanics and develop games quicker.

Early video games prove we don't need crazy graphics to make good games - people are too obsessed with graphic fidelity and its like a plague. I feel like devs have forgotten how to make good games, because its easier to pour money into graphical fidelity than create good gameplay.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

There was a time, before patches, when game development had to stop because the storage medium was full. Final Fantasy II (JP) didn't have a proper epilogue because they ran out of space. And games in general are filled to the edge of what cartridge, CD or DVD could hold.

This means that game development never had a culture of knowing where to stop; that it was the hardware's job to stop the project ballooning out of control. But now Hardware has reached the point where you couldn't fill it up anymore, like a funnel connected to a bottomless pit.

Yoko Taro said himself that he isn't interested in making games of an arbitrary length, he just wants to tell stories. He makes players replay Automa over and over because it was the only way he could pad out the same content for the gameplay hours that the industry demands. He would rather make a game that is 5 minutes long, but be the most interesting experience the player ever felt, but the current gaming expectations forbid that. I think that kind of thinking is what game industries need right now; to not think so much about quantity and refocus on quality. To stop thinking we should make games bigger.

 

[CuNi]

I think this strive for photorealism has Really thrown off game devs. Nowadays all they talk about how their games come closer and closer to realism while all they do is reaching a level of shit i cannot comprehend.

My prime example is kingdom hearts 3. Just think back how good, from a style and art perspective those games have aged. Even gameplay wise, I really love how 1 and 2 look and feel and play.

But then comes 3. It ditched the more cartoony look and went with pbr, realism etc. I really felt uncomfortable watching Sora run around with Donald and goofy while trying to convince me how realistic it looks. It's comic look is what made me like this game in the first place.

We need more games that go for a art style that better fits the games they try to make instead of being a blind herd chasing pbr or photorealism.

That would actually even held lower dev time. Games can look cartoony or weird. We need more games that try to be fun to play and not good to look at. I'd gladly take some linear games with mediocre graphics but fun gameplay over many good looking but no fun games.

 

[Relativ9]

A lot of gamers also has a lot different preferences these days. They want massive open worlds with detailed lore and gripping storylines. This alone takes a long time to craft nevermind all the graphics that have to along with it.

Gone are the days where developers could make large sandboxes with an incredibly stripped down and predicable narrative of "kill the baddymcBadbad cause he's bad" and fill in the lore in the later more advanced sequels. Now you have to be gripping and complex enough to have your own wiki site on the first try.