• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Hideo Kojima IGN interview

RevolverRoden

Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,724
0
0

HE'S BACK!
 

eyeball_kid

Member
Jul 25, 2011
9,067
5
0

This is what I said last night. It was silly to think MS ever had a chance of courting Kojima when they just haven't fostered the kinds of personal relationships in Japan you need to make a deal like this. This was never about moneyhatting; Kojima was put through the ringer at Konami and wanted to partner with people he trusted and liked first and foremost.
 

Pinko Marx

Banned
May 11, 2009
17,640
0
0
Georgia
This is what I said last night. It was silly to think MS ever had a chance of courting Kojima when they just haven't fostered the kinds of personal relationships in Japan you need to make a deal like this. This was never about moneyhatting; Kojima was put through the ringer at Konami and wanted to partner with people he trusted and liked first and foremost.
But I'm sure that fat wad o yen helped him along the decision too.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 10, 2012
21,085
0
370
I look forward to see what they come up with.

Ground Zeroes vs. The Phantom Pain is evidence scale isn't everything.

Not you specifically, Alienous, but it's interesting to see how the narrative seems to have shifted with GZ; from being dismissed as a "paid demo" to it's a "tighter, more focused experience".
 

Alo0oy

Banned
Oct 12, 2014
7,806
0
0
Bahrain
Wasn't The Witcher 3 made by a pretty small team (by AAA standards)?

It had a 5 year development cycle, I don't think most publishers want that, they can cut that time in half with more staff.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make an open world RPG with a small team, it just takes an awfully long time.
 

Lys Skygge

Member
Jun 23, 2014
4,996
0
0
Arizona
It had a 5 year development cycle, I don't think most publishers want that, they can cut that time in half with more staff.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make an open world RPG with a small team, it just takes an awfully long time.
True. I honestly hope Kojima doesn't do another open world game. MGSV was mostly amazing, but the open world felt wasted. Hopefully he does something tight and focused.
 

johnnydrama

Banned
Jan 29, 2015
3,483
0
0
It had a 5 year development cycle, I don't think most publishers want that, they can cut that time in half with more staff.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make an open world RPG with a small team, it just takes an awfully long time.

Three and a half year development cycle.
 

Alo0oy

Banned
Oct 12, 2014
7,806
0
0
Bahrain
Three and a half year development cycle.

TW3 released four years after the release of TW2, if you add approximately ~1 year of pre-production time during the development of TW2 (that's what most studios do, to avoid downtime within the studio after shipping a new game), that's about 5 years.

Anyway, that's just semantics, more staff means shipping the game much faster, which is what publishers want.
 

johnnydrama

Banned
Jan 29, 2015
3,483
0
0
TW3 released four years after the release of TW2, if you add approximately ~1 year of pre-production time during the development of TW2 (that's what most studios do, to avoid downtime within the studio after shipping a new game), that's about 5 years.

Anyway, that's just semantics, more staff means shipping the game much faster, which is what publishers want.

Well, every source on the internet, including CDPR themselves say three and a half years of development time, so...

Although the team at CDPR that worked on The Witcher 3 was much larger than the Bethesda team that worked on Fallout 4.
 

duckroll

Member
Jun 7, 2004
114,734
5
0
39
More staff = ships faster is a myth. There are some things in development which can be hastened by having more staff, or by outsourcing certain components and modules to other partners. But there are also a lot of things which contribute to how long it takes to develop and -polish- a software product where the amount of manpower you have will really not make any difference at all. At best having a ton of staff means that during those periods of development, the other staff can work on other projects which they can contribute to, at worst it means you have a bunch of people paid to twiddle their thumbs because of poor management.
 

OléGunner

Member
May 4, 2014
6,149
0
0
Man this is just awesome seeing Kojima in a creatively free environment.

That interview makes it sound like he really needed to get the fuck out under Konami's heel. So happy for the guy :')

Now Koji pls, not a pure horror game haha

TW3 released four years after the release of TW2, if you add approximately ~1 year of pre-production time during the development of TW2 (that's what most studios do, to avoid downtime within the studio after shipping a new game), that's about 5 years.

Anyway, that's just semantics, more staff means shipping the game much faster, which is what publishers want.

Ehh not always.

Staff are human beings and you can imagine a bloated workforce causing less agility and thus longer dev times.
It's not a perfect science.
 

Alo0oy

Banned
Oct 12, 2014
7,806
0
0
Bahrain
More staff = ships faster is a myth. There are some things in development which can be hastened by having more staff, or by outsourcing certain components and modules to other partners. But there are also a lot of things which contribute to how long it takes to develop and -polish- a software product where the amount of manpower you have will really not make any difference at all. At best having a ton of staff means that during those periods of development, the other staff can work on other projects which they can contribute to, at worst it means you have a bunch of people paid to twiddle their thumbs because of poor management.

I wouldn't say it's a myth, if Bethesda had more modelers or texture artists, FO4 probably wouldn't look like a cross-gen game.

After a certain point, you of course start to have redundancies, but that's why studio directors and publishers need to manage their studio and budget well, it's not a choice between a Ubisoft's 1k devs strategy or Bethesda's 100 devs strategy, you need to have a good balance.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,140
8
0
Australia
I don't think throwing a bunch of contracted Sony staff at the project would necessarily be what Kojima wants. It's a bit fanfiction, but reading into what Kojima says seems to imply he wants to get back to more personalised, less industrialised work. The guy has been bolted to massive Metal Gear projects for over a decade, all of which have gotten bigger and bigger as he not-so-subtly laments not working on other franchises. Now he has no choice other than to work closer with a tight nit team on an entirely new idea with a publisher that's actually going to let him do it. Often working within perceived limitations (staff and budget) can do wonders for the creative process, rather than working on yet another 300-man AAA behemoth.

Plus, you know, despite the senior member experience this is entirely new startings for KojiPro. I'd rather see Kojima and co really pour themselves into a project they can manage and are passionate about at the expense of logistical development size in favour of a more passionately woven creative work, then once the studio has found its footing then can blow up into bigger things.

Let the dude breath a bit basically.
 

duckroll

Member
Jun 7, 2004
114,734
5
0
39
I wouldn't say it's a myth, if Bethesda had more modelers or texture artists, FO4 probably wouldn't look like a cross-gen game.

Maybe? But would the game ship -faster- than 3+ years it already takes? Having more resources means you can do more things at the same time. What I'm saying is that certain core things simply take time regardless of how many people are put on it. Level design iterations for example, or getting the game design right, balancing the game, studying the results of testing and feedback, these things don't go faster with more people. While these things are happening, if you have more people you can do more to improve the game, but those are all extras.
 

Schlomo

Member
Dec 5, 2008
1,492
1
865
I'm not convinced they got the translation right, mechanical design can also mean things like vehicles. Either way he's not necessarily talking about an upcoming project, just the sort of roles he'll be taking on in a more general sense.

This. Please stop with the mech stuff. He just says "mechanical design", nothing more.
 

BreezyLimbo

Banned
Jul 11, 2014
36,963
1
0
I don't think throwing a bunch of contracted Sony staff at the project would necessarily be what Kojima wants. It's a bit fanfiction, but reading into what Kojima says seems to imply he wants to get back to more personalised, less industrialised work. The guy has been bolted to massive Metal Gear projects for over a decade, all of which have gotten bigger and bigger as he not-so-subtly laments not working on other franchises. Now he has no choice other than to work closer with a tight nit team on an entirely new idea with a publisher that's actually going to let him do it. Often working within perceived limitations (staff and budget) can do wonders for the creative process, rather than working on yet another 300-man AAA behemoth.

Plus, you know, despite the senior member experience this is entirely new startings for KojiPro. I'd rather see Kojima and co really pour themselves into a project they can manage and are passionate about at the expense of logistical development size in favour of a more passionately woven creative work, then once the studio has found its footing then can blow up into bigger things.

Let the dude breath a bit basically.

Mhm. That's what I figured the postings were for-One, a sort of beacon for KojiPro members to go to and apply, those who want to leave Konami and continue working with Kojima. Ken and Yoji joining him already show that there are those who want to continue with Kojima. I'm sure there are more.

Maybe? But would the game ship -faster- than 3+ years it already takes? Having more resources means you can do more things at the same time. What I'm saying is that certain core things simply take time regardless of how many people are put on it. Level design iterations for example, or getting the game design right, balancing the game, studying the results of testing and feedback, these things don't go faster with more people. While these things are happening, if you have more people you can do more to improve the game, but those are all extras.

Very true. Kojima for example, seems to be involved in many facets of his games design. Writing, directing, producing, how the characters look, how they move, etc. There's something very personalized about having a smaller team and being able to look over their shoulders and provide instant feedback. It's why the MGS games have so much detail in them, because Kojima can be a bit neurotic about it(Most apparent in MGS2, with the lighting, reflections, the ice cube insanity), and if you have over 300 people working on it then it becomes less personal, it becomes a matter of him reviewing files sent to him, then sending them back with notes, loss of communication...

And I feel that Kojima would be one to hand pick the people he works with. People that he's built trust and communication with over time. So it's not as simple as using Sony's assets or going on a hiring spree. And that's not a bad thing. I don't want KojiProd to rush development on a game just to say 'Hey look we did something', nor should they feel the need to(Except to Sony of course, but I mean...Last Guardian.)
 

Alo0oy

Banned
Oct 12, 2014
7,806
0
0
Bahrain
Maybe? But would the game ship -faster- than 3+ years it already takes? Having more resources means you can do more things at the same time. What I'm saying is that certain core things simply take time regardless of how many people are put on it. Level design iterations for example, or getting the game design right, balancing the game, studying the results of testing and feedback, these things don't go faster with more people. While these things are happening, if you have more people you can do more to improve the game, but those are all extras.

Probably, that's been Ubisoft's model for years, regardless of my or your opinion on their games, they ship their games very quickly.
 

duckroll

Member
Jun 7, 2004
114,734
5
0
39
Probably, that's been Ubisoft's model for years, regardless of my or your opinion on their games, they ship their games very quickly.

Ubisoft's model works because they make dozens of games at the same time. That's part of my point which you don't seem to understand. Ubisoft may release an Assassin's Creed every year, but that doesn't mean it takes a year to make each one. They take 2-3 years to make each one, but they have so many resources they can juggle the developments such that they finish one each year. If they had the same resources (1000+ people) and made one Assassin's Creed game at a time with the same leads and core team for consistency, it would still take 2-3 years to make each one.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,140
8
0
Australia
Ubisoft's model works because they make dozens of games at the same time. That's part of my point which you don't seem to understand. Ubisoft may release an Assassin's Creed every year, but that doesn't mean it takes a year to make each one. They take 2-3 years to make each one, but they have so many resources they can juggle the developments such that they finish one each year. If they had the same resources (1000+ people) and made one Assassin's Creed game at a time with the same leads and core team for consistency, it would still take 2-3 years to make each one.

Yeah. It's like Call of Duty. We get one each yeah, but they're obviously not a 12 month turnaround on each one as the distinction is made between studios. 'Creed is the same thing; we get one every year, but they're each technically 2 - 3 year projects that benefit from immense data sharing between teams.
 

R-User!

Member
Nov 18, 2005
5,078
0
1,185
mechs huh... i smell spiritual successor to Zone of the Enders.

Based on their new logo, I wouldn't be surprised to see Futuristic Knights hopping into Steam-Punk-esque Mechs heading out to battle Alien-Human hybrids encased in biologically-grown hardened exoskeletons.

Why not?
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
Not you specifically, Alienous, but it's interesting to see how the narrative seems to have shifted with GZ; from being dismissed as a "paid demo" to it's a "tighter, more focused experience".

It can be both.

I got it on the cheap so the amount I paid for it was negligible.
 

Mr. RHC

Member
Apr 16, 2012
5,563
2
450

This is amazing!

I
don't think throwing a bunch of contracted Sony staff at the project
would necessarily be what Kojima wants. It's a bit fanfiction, but
reading into what Kojima says seems to imply he wants to get back to
more personalised, less industrialised work. The guy has been bolted to
massive Metal Gear projects for over a decade, all of which have gotten
bigger and bigger as he not-so-subtly laments not working on other
franchises. Now he has no choice other than to work closer with a tight
nit team on an entirely new idea with a publisher that's actually going
to let him do it. Often working within perceived limitations (staff and
budget) can do wonders for the creative process, rather than working on
yet another 300-man AAA behemoth.

Plus, you know, despite the senior member experience this is entirely
new startings for KojiPro. I'd rather see Kojima and co really pour
themselves into a project they can manage and are passionate about at
the expense of logistical development size in favour of a more
passionately woven creative work, then once the studio has found its
footing then can blow up into bigger things.

Let the dude breath a bit basically.

Well said.
 

Alo0oy

Banned
Oct 12, 2014
7,806
0
0
Bahrain
Ubisoft's model works because they make dozens of games at the same time. That's part of my point which you don't seem to understand. Ubisoft may release an Assassin's Creed every year, but that doesn't mean it takes a year to make each one. They take 2-3 years to make each one, but they have so many resources they can juggle the developments such that they finish one each year. If they had the same resources (1000+ people) and made one Assassin's Creed game at a time with the same leads and core team for consistency, it would still take 2-3 years to make each one.

There are things that take time regardless, but there's no doubt that a 200 person team would ship a game faster than a 100 person team making the same game, as I said redundancies will happen once you start having too many devs, but I don't think 100 is anywhere near the ideal number for efficient development.

There's a balance between the two, it's not a linear progression of more devs = faster development, but it's not the opposite either, you get to a point where you don't have enough devs for efficient development.
 

artsi

Member
Apr 7, 2014
7,151
100
570
Finland
More staff = ships faster is a myth. There are some things in development which can be hastened by having more staff, or by outsourcing certain components and modules to other partners. But there are also a lot of things which contribute to how long it takes to develop and -polish- a software product where the amount of manpower you have will really not make any difference at all. At best having a ton of staff means that during those periods of development, the other staff can work on other projects which they can contribute to, at worst it means you have a bunch of people paid to twiddle their thumbs because of poor management.

Not all tasks of course, but a lot of creating a huge open world is brute artist / scripting work though, and more staff helps with that.
They can also use contractors for that, so when their specific part is finished they don't have to pay extra.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 10, 2012
21,085
0
370
Often working within perceived limitations (staff and budget) can do wonders for the creative process, rather than working on yet another 300-man AAA behemoth.

Definitely agree with that. Limitation is a breeding ground for innovation.

It can be both.

I got it on the cheap so the amount I paid for it was negligible.

The label of "demo" implies that it isn't a fully fleshed out experience, merely a slice. Particularly funny when that is a criticism often levelled at TPP. Reframing the "demo" as a more "focused experience" kind of flies in the face of that. To me, it's the kind of semantic inversion/dilution of meaning that real estate agents use when they describing a tiny one-room house as "cosy".

Regardless, it's funny how that whole narrative has changed. No one described GZ as a "focused experience" before TPP.
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
The label of "demo" implies that it isn't a fully fleshed out experience, merely a slice. Particularly funny when that is a criticism often levelled at TPP. Reframing the "demo" as a more "focused experience" kind of flies in the face of that. To me, it's the kind of semantic inversion/dilution of meaning that real estate agents use when they describing a tiny one-room house as "cosy".

Regardless, it's funny how that whole narrative has changed. No one described GZ as a "focused experience" before TPP.

A more "focused experience" than TPP. People didn't refer to it that way before TPP because they had no reason to think that would be the case; they hadn't played TPP.

It's more about how bloated and unfocused The Phantom Pain is, and how the pursuit of scale might not be a worthwhile one. The Phantom Pain might be '200 times' the size of Ground Zeroes, but it isn't 200 times the game Ground Zeroes is.

That's my point. Ground Zeroes is essentially a demo of The Phantom Pain, while simultaneously being more focused than that game, and a testament to the fact that Kojima Productions need not pursue scale over substance, IMO.
 

Imperfected

Member
Jul 17, 2013
12,888
0
0
Seattle
More staff = ships faster is a myth. There are some things in development which can be hastened by having more staff, or by outsourcing certain components and modules to other partners. But there are also a lot of things which contribute to how long it takes to develop and -polish- a software product where the amount of manpower you have will really not make any difference at all. At best having a ton of staff means that during those periods of development, the other staff can work on other projects which they can contribute to, at worst it means you have a bunch of people paid to twiddle their thumbs because of poor management.

Not to mention that even for tasks where you can throw more bodies at the problem, you don't get proportionate returns on efficiency.

Even for engine programming and other core coding work, a hundred programmers just do not do a hundred times the work of one programmer. That is never the case, and never will be, even if you somehow manage to automate all of your efficiency solutions to the point where there's no immediately apparent overhead (ie, if you magically didn't need a management structure to handle all those extra heads), you just run into the wall where there aren't enough "simple" tasks to go around, and the "hard" tasks are going to take days or weeks to muddle through a solution. You just end up with a hundred people muddling through a hundred possible solutions, with the best case scenario being that you get to pick the best one. (More likely, one guy comes up with a solution, maybe two or three contribute by helping him work around conceptual roadblocks, and the other ninety-plus wasted their time.)
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Dec 10, 2012
21,085
0
370
That's my point.

I understood in the first place, man. It's still a semantic reframing of the debate. The derogatory "demo" becomes the positive "more focused experience". They're essentially describing the same thing.

I'm not saying it's wrong to think that, nor did I want to get into a protracted debate about it. As I said, I think it's a funny shift in/reframing of the narrative around that game, that's all.
 

Hypereides

Member
Jan 19, 2009
8,021
841
1,155
Denmark
I don't think throwing a bunch of contracted Sony staff at the project would necessarily be what Kojima wants. It's a bit fanfiction, but reading into what Kojima says seems to imply he wants to get back to more personalised, less industrialised work. The guy has been bolted to massive Metal Gear projects for over a decade, all of which have gotten bigger and bigger as he not-so-subtly laments not working on other franchises. Now he has no choice other than to work closer with a tight nit team on an entirely new idea with a publisher that's actually going to let him do it. Often working within perceived limitations (staff and budget) can do wonders for the creative process, rather than working on yet another 300-man AAA behemoth.

Plus, you know, despite the senior member experience this is entirely new startings for KojiPro. I'd rather see Kojima and co really pour themselves into a project they can manage and are passionate about at the expense of logistical development size in favour of a more passionately woven creative work, then once the studio has found its footing then can blow up into bigger things.

Let the dude breath a bit basically.

I've often thought that Kojima wanted to let MGS go for a while now. But Konami, as his employer, repeatedly persuaded him to continue. The main positive potentially being his fans who supported and encouraged him.

Imo, the series was good up to MGS3, afterwards it started to feel like overexposure of the MGS saga.
 

vpance

Member
Jun 20, 2005
8,920
3,230
1,650
It had a 5 year development cycle, I don't think most publishers want that, they can cut that time in half with more staff.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make an open world RPG with a small team, it just takes an awfully long time.

Then again they chose to make one of the biggest open worlds jam packed with tons of quests and had dev issues on top of that. They're a great example of what can be done with a small team and the problems that arise from biting off more than they can chew. An open world RPG that's half the size of TW3 would still be good.
 
Nov 27, 2009
10,719
0
0
Can't wait for Iron Cog Opaque, a stealth action game starring Opaque Salamander.

voiced by David Hayter.

Plus, where are the "Konami was a mistake, it's nothing but trash" Gifs? Get on it, GAF!
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
I understood in the first place, man. It's still a semantic reframing of the debate. The derogatory "demo" becomes the positive "more focused experience". They're essentially describing the same thing.

I'm not saying it's wrong to think that, nor did I want to get into a protracted debate about it. As I said, I think it's a funny shift in/reframing of the narrative around that game, that's all.

No need for a debate, I just don't think we're on the same page.

The difference between 'demo' and 'more focused experience' isn't semantic. A demo isn't inherently 'more focused' than that the larger experience it is demoing, unless you assume 'focused' to mean 'smaller'.

The derogatory 'paid demo' label isn't a 'framing' of a 'more focused experience', it's a separate label entirely. The reasons for seeing it as a 'demo' and the reasons for seeing it as more focused than The Phantom Pain aren't the same. 'Demo' comes from viewing it as a small vertical slice of a larger game, 'more focused' comes from viewing it as an experience that is less bloated.

TL;DR: Demo simply means less content. 'More focused experience' means less bloated by content.