That's an improvement at least, too many devs used to wear it as a "badge of honour" like a bunch of brainwashed donkeys.Not like they were excited about it, but because it was inevitable and part of the process.
Yeah, though I'll admit, it all depends on how it's handled. Crunch is by no means something for everyone. But in the experiences I had, we had fun where we could while in the thick of it. Some devs make it sound like they survived death, and I don't really get that. Maybe it's THAT abysmal at some studios, but in mine it wasn't like that at all. It was just everyone focusing and working as much as they possibly could to meet deadlines and submission.That's an improvement at least, too many devs used to wear it as a "badge of honour" like a bunch of brainwashed donkeys.
>Insinuating Nintendo were forwards thinking with WiiNintendo saw this problem in 2006 and went with the Wii. The solution has always been there. Decrease excess spending on graphics, and focus on selling the product through good game design.
There is an incredible lack of imagination in movies, and games in general right now. Reboots, franchises that never end, budgets keep ballooning to compensate. As the budgets expand, experimentation decreases to reduce risk. (Ex: Deus Ex ----> Marvel (sure bet) ------> sold to Embracer)
Don't get me wrong, I like a good looking next-gen game as much as the next guy; but it clearly has downsides and trade-offs associated with it.
The solution is there, but companies just don't want to do it.
They were; like shockingly so.>Insinuating Nintendo were forwards thinking with Wii
>Wii with its fucking 480i/576i resolution and composite cables.
Business graduets, analysts, marketing and investors f-ing up development.im not a game developer obviously, but i think most of the time game progress hault is not due to bugs but bad plannings, like changing of game features/game engines half way, overconfident etc....
From a future proof consumer value point of view, their foresight was that of a molerat.They were; like shockingly so.
Most companies today that get in financial trouble would just look to sell or pursue a merger. Nintendo was losing to Sony and getting pushed out by a bigger multimedia company with the ability to outspend them, pack in disc drive formats they were involved in making, and use revenue from other divisions. They were losing third party games rapidly.
Their solution was a gamble and a bet so radical that it will forever cement Iwata as having the largest balls of any video game CEO I'm aware of in history. They put out a cheaper system with a completely new way to play, that didn't compete graphically, and marketed it towards senior citizens. And it fucking worked.
This, heck in GAF alone there are too many people way too obsess with shiny graphics, I think all of us remember the amount of shit Elden Ring got when it first show off its gameplay just because it doesn't look "next gen".Not in their current state and with expectations from players being top of the line visuals + no recycled assets + at least 30 hours of content.
Still waiting for episode three.I think the scope of games have gotten so much bigger then before. Episodic games will likely help get more content out the door.
I agree with ALL of this except the next gen graphics part. Many games from the early 2000s actually had more complex lighting systems than what games we have today. (cough cough Splinter cell cough cough)They could just make the game with said PS2 graphics and sell them with said PS2 graphics. if they want to make it look good, Maaaaaybe bump it up to 360 level. Triple A games aren't really defined by how good they look, HFW looks leagues better than ER and yet ER is getting the best head ever from everybody in the gaming community.I‘ve asked myself that as well. I‘ve long wondered if a development process like this would be beneficial:
-Develop a game from start to finish with very simplified graphics (PS2 level at most). All gameplay elements are
in place, including physics and animations, but the assets, lighting etc. are very primitive. The first year or two of
development should be dedicated entirely to implementing the gameplay systems. And I don‘t mean a ‚vertical
slice‘, I mean the whole game should be finished, just with very simple graphics.
-Once the raw gameplay is done, put it into a proper graphics engine with proper current-gen assets, whether
UE5 or an internally developed engine. The second half of development would be dedicated mostly to making
the game look good. While this is being done, a team of play-testers is continuously playing the earlier ‚raw’
version of the game, to improve minor gameplay elements and things like pacing etc. These improvements will
be implemented into the ‚pretty‘ version of the game during the second half of development.
-Meanwhile, during the second half of development, the first team which developed the ‚raw‘ version of the
game, is already working on the raw version of the next game, which the technical team will then put into the
proper engine too once their work on the previous game is finished.
I have no idea if a process like this is practical or even possible, since I don‘t know a lot about game development. But to me it seems reasonable that it would be easier to make a game with PS2 level graphics, where developers can focus entirely on gameplay, which can then be turned into a proper current-gen game, while the raw version of the next game is already in development. But as I said, I barely know anything about game development, so it‘s possible that there‘s something I‘m missing.
Yup.Wouldn't be surprised to hear in years to come that countries with lower wages like Poland have more games studios. That's one way to keep costs down.... outsource eh.
AAA games get bigger, more complex and more detailed every generation.Im not clued in on game development at all, but it seems ridiculous that many studios are now only able to get out one title per console generation, why are games taking so much longer to make now? Crunch is obviously an industry wide problem, but can things like asset creation become automated to make the process faster? It took 343 six years to make a new halo game, and its still not finished, bungie was pumping a new content complete game out every two to three years. Rockstar used to release several big new games per generation, now we get one, if we are lucky. I mean they are still releasing gta v two consoles later!! I think this shit sucks tbh. It makes me wonder how the hell ubisoft have managed to pump out multiple big releases recently, same with activision and call of duty. But if you look
at the output from a company like ea, they have gone from releasing 8-10 games a year to 2-3 a year in the last decade alone.
This has to be an alt account or you are stuck in a timewarp.There is no way in hell games like God of War or HZD are made without massive crunch considering the graphics.
No witchcraft, just release a game buggy as shit and patch it (or don't) later.I dunno somebody needs to find out Insomniacs witchcraft