Devs, what do wish players understood better about games (making them, discussing them, fandom interactions, etc.)?

[sn00zer]

I have an extremely cursory view of game development. I like reading/listening to dev interviews, read a gamasutra article from time to time, and will watch some of the GDC talks. One of the big things I've come away with is that a lot of game development seems to be a huge disconnect between game development and the people that play games. Even the "dumbest" games seem to need some insanely smart project managers, programmers, artists, marketers, etc. behind them. It's a totally different industry than the one I am in, but they have the same conferences, project management requirements, production, expertise as any other profession out there.

Playing games on the other hand takes little to no real effort compared to effort it takes to make them. It feels really really odd being able to blow through a game in a weekend, when I know that it was literally thousands of hours of labor/schooling/crafting to get that thing in my hands. I have literally no stake in the games I play, I just play them, I enjoy them, then move onto the next one. Hell, the thing is literally designed for me to beat it.

So to bridge that gap juuuust a bit, game devs, what do you wish people who played games understood better? Whether thats about making games, playing games, discussing games, etc. Is there something out there that you wish players just had a better understanding of?

 

[Sparks]

Most Devs have thought about everything and discussed it at length, even if the idea or concept seems super obvious on paper, it sometimes just doesn't work in practice or has extreme ramifications for other things you haven't even thought about. I tend to see a lot of gamers go, "Why didn't they just do X" (I'm sometimes guilty of it too) there's usually a list somewhere on why we didn't.

 

[Feep]

I have literally no stake in the games I play, I just play them, I enjoy them, then move onto the next one. Hell, the thing is literally designed for me to beat it.

Click to shrink...

That's honestly okay. We know that the time ratio is way unbalanced, but we're also reaching hopefully thousands upon thousands of people...so the combined amount of enjoyment adds up.

I would say the typical one is how budget and time and tech constraints affect literally everything. Every single thing we do is a compromise, from the number of polygons, to the texture resolution, to the amount of time spent on assets, to the amount of content for players...it's all a constant juggling act and every single game is its own little miracle, in a way, that someone managed to trick a bunch of silicon into doing this shit.

Also, facial animation is hard as FUCK

 

[sn00zer]

That's honestly okay. We know that the time ratio is way unbalanced, but we're also reaching hopefully thousands upon thousands of people...so the combined amount of enjoyment adds up.

Click to shrink...

I was really curious if this was the case. Watching some of the more "brutal" dev documentaries part of me is wondering how it can be worth it for devs.

 

[Feep]

I was really curious if this was the case. Watching some of the more "brutal" dev documentaries part of me is wondering how it can be worth it for devs.

Click to shrink...

A lot of devs, even indies, burn themselves out. There's also a pretty well-known phenomenon of extreme depression once a game releases. Even if it's doing well, everyone enjoys the game remotely and privately, so it feels like..."that's it?" You gotta find a way to enjoy the process, or you're gonna burn right out of games real quick.

 

[Chackan]

This is a very GOOD idea for a thread!

I often think that devs are really underappreciated, and threads like this should be an eye opener for some people.

 

[kidko]

In 12 years, I've never met a lazy dev

 

[Afrocious]

In 12 years, I've never met a lazy dev

Click to shrink...

Nice to meet you. I'm not a game dev, but I am a software dev and I'm hella lazy.

 

[Deleted member 16908]

I'm not a developer BUT the way some people think next-gen hardware automatically means games will look incredible is just so wrong. If I gave you the best USB drawing tablet on the market, could you instantly make something that would rocket to the front page of DeviantArt? Of course not. It takes serious time, effort and talent to produce the stuff you see in games like TLOU and RDR2. In a sense, new hardware actually makes it even harder to impress people, especially at the start of a generation when everyone is judging every new thing that comes out based on if it looks "next gen" or not.

 

[sn00zer]

Most Devs have thought about everything and discussed it at length, even if the idea or concept seems super obvious on paper, it sometimes just doesn't work in practice or has extreme ramifications for other things you haven't even thought about. I tend to see a lot of gamers go, "Why didn't they just do X" (I'm sometimes guilty of it too) there's usually a list somewhere on why we didn't.

Click to shrink...

I would legit love to see a deep dive into an example of this since I see what you are talking about all the time. I do wonder how the devs see the balance of "I am an expert in making this game" versus the "I put the hundreds of hours into the playing of it with no context of development" when it comes to the ultimate functionality of game mechanics and how to parse player feedback.

A lot of devs, even indies, burn themselves out. There's also a pretty well-known phenomenon of extreme depression once a game releases. Even if it's doing well, everyone enjoys the game remotely and privately, so it feels like..."that's it?" You gotta find a way to enjoy the process, or you're gonna burn right out of games real quick.

Click to shrink...

I could absolutely see this, especially given how fast discussion moves onto the next thing.

 

[xch1n]

"I am an expert in making this game" versus the "I put the hundreds of hours into the playing of it with no context of development" when it comes to the ultimate functionality of game mechanics and how to parse player feedback.

Click to shrink...

The easiest, simplest, most succinct response to this is, playing it for hundreds of hours is from the perspective of one player, even if they did multiple playthroughs, or played drastically different styles.

The people designing the game have to balance that one viewpoint with the myriad of others who might play and enjoy the game. While also having played said game for hundreds to thousands of hours at various points in the development cycle.

 

[kidko]

Nice to meet you. I'm not a game dev, but I am a software dev and I'm hella lazy.

Click to shrink...

nice to meet you as well!

If i were to be less lazy in my post (lul) then I might elaborate a bit more and say:

The limitations in games which players point at and say "LAZY DEVS!" are, in my experience, never due to laziness.

They are the result of compromise. Compromise to complete tasks on time to meet deadlines to stay on budget, for example. Compromise to include your idea but also meet the game director's vision. Compromise to reduce scope to keep the feature from being cut all together. Compromise because you've already worked 10 hours today and really shouldn't keep working today, but maybe just one more hour on my personal pet feature...

 

[MarioW]

Some thoughts on this to throw out there (context: have been developing games across mobile, console, PC, handheld for 23 years, in both a work for hire basis, self publishing, and publishing third party games)

• "This game would have been better if they made it work this way instead" - maybe, but in so many of those instances, devs probably tried it that way and found it was inferior
• "This game is terrible, why even make this garbage" - sometimes you do what you have to do to survive. You take on the low budget, impossibly short timeframe project so you can keep paying your people, and live to fight another day
• "The developers are just being lazy here" - I've never met a lazy developer. Most developers are trying really hard, and want the best for the game and the players. What you perceive as "laziness" is probably the result of some other constraint on development
• "This game is just ripping off this other game" - just because a couple of games share some core mechanic or theming and ended up being vaguely similar in some way and there not being many of those particular games around doesn't mean their was a proactive plagiarism there. Indeed, how are these games ripoffs of each other when bigger or AAA titles which share 90% of their gameplay DNA are not?
• "They don't listen to their players" - developers and teams see a ton of the feedback from players, both formally and informally. There is often a lot to take in, a lot to weigh up and filter, and if anything actionable is derived then it can take some time to actually make a particular change or addition happen, even if it is deemed viable. Just because nothing appears to be happening doesn't mean devs aren't listening.
• "This is a PR nightmare, why don't they say what needs to be said" - marketing, PR, and messaging can be challenging at the best of times. For a lot of smaller teams in particular, they don't necessarily have the bandwidth, skills, or training inhouse to be able to deal with an issue when it blows up, especially in what can be in the face of vitriolic widespread commentary.
• "There is definitely a market for this thing, why is nobody making it" - there probably isn't as much of a market as you think or little data to support its existence. The games industry can be punishing when you make a single misstep, so forging into completely unknown or risky territory with flimsy evidence to support the existence of a market could be committing to a potential life or death situation for a company, particularly smaller ones that only work on a game or two at a time and can't afford a "loss".

 

[Deleted member 17184]

Also, facial animation is hard as FUCK

Click to shrink...

Could you share more on how it works when a studio hires someone for the face model and someone else for mo-cap and voice acting? Does the face model make a number of different expressions to use as a base visually? I have no clue on how the mo-cap actor makes another face move, lol.

 

[SomePlayer]

Great thread idea!
I hope more devs can chime in, and thanks to those that have already posted.

 

[SinkFla]

I think people who bitch a lot at fighting game devs should take the Sinkfla Approved Dreams challenge.

Even with Dreams being an extremely simplified and streamlined game development process I still fucking called it quits trying to animate and program gatling attack commands 😄

 

[Mórríoghain]

Marketing and PR departments aren't some 3 interns coming up with shit on the daily, especially in mid to big sized companies.

Also no intern is even in the 25 meters of vicinity of running a social media. Stop insulting career sm managers.

 

[Tomo815]

I sometimes worry that we are to game devs what facebook is to scientists.

 

[panama chief]

Hi devs, how does it feel being so close to your fanbase? ive seen dev teams interacting with players on forums and discord more now than ever. in the 90s-early 2000s, the thought that id be able to speak to or even ask question to a game developer seemed like a pipe dream. As a consumer im enlightened and thrilled daily at the prospect. how does it feel on the other side of the fence?

 

[Ghostsonplanets]

I sometimes worry that we are to game devs what facebook is to scientists.

Click to shrink...

Do you mean data scientists? Because i don't see the connection.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Could you share more on how it works when a studio hires someone for the face model and someone else for mo-cap and voice acting? Does the face model make a number of different expressions to use as a base visually? I have no clue on how the mo-cap actor makes another face move, lol.

Click to shrink...

The animation is driven by motion capture data that is retargeted onto a character model, after cleanup animators then go in and polish the hell out of the animation to make it truly lifelike. Adding lots of little touches and nuances from the performance until the scene is finalized.

 

[Chief Malik]

I feel like it's lame that game dev is so secretive, we have no idea what's it's like, how hard it is, how long it takes outside of anonymous interviews(most of the time) because of that. The movie and television walks around with everything out in the open. We will learn about movies literally a decade out and have the development be documented along the way. No idea why games can't be the same.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I feel like it's lame that game dev is so secretive, we have no idea what's it's like, how hard it is, how long it takes outside of anonymous interviews(most of the time) because of that.

Click to shrink...

Game development isn't secretive at all. Things like the Game Developer's Conference exist and there are plenty of incredibly active forums dedicated to game development. The thing is that for average people a lot of the information is gibberish because it requires years of training to understand let alone the relatively mundane nitty gritty of making a game. It's the same as any other profession in that regard.

 

[The Lord of Cereal]

I'm not a dev, but I wish more people understood game engines and how they work. I'm tired of people saying that BGS games are bad "because of the engine" and people saying that they need to switch to a new engine like Unreal or something. And it's not just BGS but several games I have seen people say that with and it frustrates me to no end. Can only imagine how devs feel

 

[Crossing Eden]

I'm not a dev, but I wish more people understood game engines and how they work. I'm tired of people saying that BGS games are bad "because of the engine" and people saying that they need to switch to a new engine like Unreal or something. And it's not just BGS but several games I have seen people say that with and it frustrates me to no end. Can only imagine how devs feel

Click to shrink...

 

[RFC001]

As a general principal I think it's always good for people to know what they are talking about.

 

[ERAsaur]

Everything in a game has to be made (or re-tuned for the current project if it's being reused from a previous project) and even the most mundane tables often take hours to make. "It's just typing some numbers in what's the big deal" is what I used to think to until somehow the sun had gone down and it was suddenly 2 AM.

 

[eraFROMAN]

QA finds waaaaay more unfixed bugs than you do, and probably has reported the ones you do find on release. Sometimes, fixing them is out of the question because 5 more bugs could pop up as a result of fixing that one. That one NPC passing through an object might be the concession for the show stopping, save corrupting bug that was found the day before submission.

QA will also have to basically campaign to get certain bugs looked at; reporting several times, creating several videos, looking at the code if that's an option, and getting others to reproduce the issue, only to be told it's not an important issue. Then the players find it in the millions, and you're having to go through the process again on a new build to see what fixing it breaks.

Last bit; when it comes to rereleases or HD Remasters, some devs would rather not fix old bugs, again because it could cause several more and since those conversions are often outsourced, a studio unfamiliar with old code (without comments in it!) will not even attempt fixes without a lot of time consuming consultation. Game dev is very very difficult if it's your livelihood.

Long, long days, those were.

 

[Hampig]

That nothing is as easy as you'd guess. Even the smallest changes can have effects that players would never imagine and can be a lot more work than you'd think looking in from the outside.

 

[eraFROMAN]

Hi devs, how does it feel being so close to your fanbase? ive seen dev teams interacting with players on forums and discord more now than ever. in the 90s-early 2000s, the thought that id be able to speak to or even ask question to a game developer seemed like a pipe dream. As a consumer im enlightened and thrilled daily at the prospect. how does it feel on the other side of the fence?

Click to shrink...

When I worked in games, I had to be at the office at midnight for "forum patrol," and we absolutely saw all the crazy stuff people would post about games on release day. Some appreciative, some wildly angry. But... Having been on both ends, I think it's valuable to be able to ask questions without the context of marketing. It might dispel some of the "magic," but it makes it easier to appreciate the work put in and the appreciation/critique can come from a more "honest" place.

 

[Urishizu]

Most Devs have thought about everything and discussed it at length, even if the idea or concept seems super obvious on paper, it sometimes just doesn't work in practice or has extreme ramifications for other things you haven't even thought about. I tend to see a lot of gamers go, "Why didn't they just do X" (I'm sometimes guilty of it too) there's usually a list somewhere on why we didn't.

Click to shrink...

This right here. Building and releasing games (especially with a shoe-string budget) is a delicate balancing act. A lot of the feedback I receive is things I'm aware of, or have already actively tried to fix or improve. The thing to keep in mind sometimes is all of the stuff you don't see. Sometimes when feature/bug X isn't solved, it's because feature/bug Y was addressed or included. Everything is a tradeoff.

 

[Urishizu]

Hi devs, how does it feel being so close to your fanbase? ive seen dev teams interacting with players on forums and discord more now than ever. in the 90s-early 2000s, the thought that id be able to speak to or even ask question to a game developer seemed like a pipe dream. As a consumer im enlightened and thrilled daily at the prospect. how does it feel on the other side of the fence?

Click to shrink...

I personally really like it. I try to respond to literally everyone who posts a comment or review. A lot of time there's really good suggestions and feedback in there. Often times it's things that I didn't even think of that dramatically improve the experience. When I look at a lot of the features/patches for my games over the years, it's crazy how much of it really is player driven at the end of the day. It's why I keep an active Discord, Twitter, forums, etc... You just gotta learn to look past some of the less than constructive comments and still try to find something useful in them.

 

[DoradoWinston]

That nothing is as easy as it looks and that the first 10 solutions for a problem that you thought about were probably ones that have already been attempted and either didnt work, made it worse,didnt have the time for or goes against some core pillars.

 

[MarioW]

Game development isn't secretive at all. Things like the Game Developer's Conference exist and there are plenty of incredibly active forums dedicated to game development. The thing is that for average people a lot of the information is gibberish because it requires years of training to understand let alone the relatively mundane nitty gritty of making a game. It's the same as any other profession in that regard.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. So many open and honest talks right here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JB7TSe49lg56u6qH8y_MQ

 

[mute]

Not games but software engineering in general - not every decision is made by a "dev".

 

[Korghano]

I feel like it's lame that game dev is so secretive, we have no idea what's it's like, how hard it is, how long it takes outside of anonymous interviews(most of the time) because of that. The movie and television walks around with everything out in the open. We will learn about movies literally a decade out and have the development be documented along the way. No idea why games can't be the same.

Click to shrink...

If you're talking about the process of game dev, it isn't secretive at all, there's tons of information out there.

If you're talking about production, that's another thing. Most of the time when you make a movie or TV show, you have a script that's agreed upon, storyboards, etc, things are planned out in great detail. My experience of game dev so far is that things are much more like jazz. There's some structure, but it's loose and ever-shifting, and the end product is guided toward something cohesive.

Games aren't shown early because they aren't representative of the final product 6-12 months into development the way a movie or tv show or comic book is.

 

[sn00zer]

Question that has bugged me forever.

Let's say you have a player who has put literally hundreds of hours into a game. Would the suggestions they make actually be valuable given they are playing the game in a way very few people actually play it? I imagine this answer differs depending on whether or not the game is multiplayer or single player focused.

 

[MarioW]

Question that has bugged me forever.

Let's say you have a player who has put literally hundreds of hours into a game. Would the suggestions they make actually be valuable given they are playing the game in a way very few people actually play it? I imagine this answer differs depending on whether or not the game is multiplayer or single player focused.

Click to shrink...

Depends on the context of what they are suggesting. If it is in the ballpark of "make the game harder" or "make more endgame content", then that isn't a suggestion to pick up and run with. But that sort of user might have interesting ideas about balance, specific improvements to the interface based on a high volume of interactions, or novel ways to reuse/remix/combine content for example.

However, when it comes to suggestions in general, developers are often already exploring all manner of internal ideas and suggestions. There is usually very little that comes from the actual community that is either unique or not already in the discussion in some form. However, seeing the volume of community suggestions for a particular thing is a useful gauge of interest in some content or a feature you might be considering adding, or could be used to help prioritise your roadmap.

 

[Mik2121]

It would be nice if people were aware about the fact that games are not the way they are thanks to just one person. The director is there to direct people, but most of the decisions are made by the rest of the staff (guided by the director's... direction). So even in games like the ones done at Kojima Productions, PlatinumGames, etc, the final product is the result of 100+ people's input. And in many cases the game can end up being great in spite of the director's own original decisions (not saying the director does nothing obviously, since that's generally the most stressful position).

Unless the game is specifically made by one person or a couple of them, in most cases a specific experience or element of a game is the collaboration of multiple people.

 

[Fredrik]

There's also a pretty well-known phenomenon of extreme depression once a game releases. Even if it's doing well, everyone enjoys the game remotely and privately, so it feels like..."that's it?" You gotta find a way to enjoy the process, or you're gonna burn right out of games real quick.

Click to shrink...

Seems like Hello Games and Mojang has the answer to that.
Just keep on working on it.

But I understand that this might not work when you have a publisher demanding you to jump onto the next big thing on monday after just shipping a game on friday. But it's important to note that many of us gamers are appreciating that we're not just pushed into another lets-wait-5-years-for-the-sequel scenario after spending x hours to play a game. Getting more/new/different things to do in the game we're already in love with is such a wonderful scenario if it's done without greed. Lots of us are still playing No Man's Sky and Minecraft and the evolving nature of these games has turned them both into something truly special. I'm sure both No Man's Sky 2 and Minecraft 2 will happen one day but I'm not sure if I'll cheer or cry when that happens.

 

[platocplx]

I feel like it's lame that game dev is so secretive, we have no idea what's it's like, how hard it is, how long it takes outside of anonymous interviews(most of the time) because of that. The movie and television walks around with everything out in the open. We will learn about movies literally a decade out and have the development be documented along the way. No idea why games can't be the same.

Click to shrink...

There's stuff out there. This podcast series I learned a shit load from one interview. Also follow the GDC YouTube channel there is a ton of content on game development.
horizon GDC talk you learn a ton about design and how the game was made etc. there is a ton of content.
poscast:

The AIAS Game Maker's Notebook

A series of in-depth, one-on-one conversations between game makers.

www.interactive.org

 

[BreakAtmo]

That's honestly okay. We know that the time ratio is way unbalanced, but we're also reaching hopefully thousands upon thousands of people...so the combined amount of enjoyment adds up.

I would say the typical one is how budget and time and tech constraints affect literally everything. Every single thing we do is a compromise, from the number of polygons, to the texture resolution, to the amount of time spent on assets, to the amount of content for players...it's all a constant juggling act and every single game is its own little miracle, in a way, that someone managed to trick a bunch of silicon into doing this shit.

Also, facial animation is hard as FUCK

Click to shrink...

Regarding the technical constraints, is it true that HDD speeds are a major example and the improvements in I/O on the new consoles will make developing games a quicker and easier process for at least some of the teams?

 

[Feep]

Regarding the technical constraints, is it true that HDD speeds are a major example and the improvements in I/O on the new consoles will make developing games a quicker and easier process for at least some of the teams?

Click to shrink...

Certainly. A big constraint is available memory; ultra-fast IO can help mitigate that. Unreal 5 has some incredible looking tech where you don't need to decimate static meshes (may not work for skeletal/animated meshes, though).

But it still doesn't change the fact that you need a bajillion, very talented artists working like crazy. Consumers' expectations are always rising, so it's always a race upward above a rising waterline.

 

[Myself]

A lot of devs, even indies, burn themselves out. There's also a pretty well-known phenomenon of extreme depression once a game releases. Even if it's doing well, everyone enjoys the game remotely and privately, so it feels like..."that's it?" You gotta find a way to enjoy the process, or you're gonna burn right out of games real quick.

Click to shrink...

Yeah game dev is fucking hard, especially if you're a tiny studio like ours where programmers pretty much do everything technical, not just programming but building and releasing, fixing technical hiccups with others in the team etc. All the sucky shit that's not making cool gameplay.

A few things I'd like people to appreciate

- All the really boring shit takes a lot of time and is soul destroying - even if it's not particularly hard. UI, making sure your save system is robust, syncing, leaderboards, achievements, onboarding/tutorial systems, getting crap ready for certification, dealing with crappy tools and docs. Now this is all platform independent, some are better than others but this shit can suck a lot of time and life from a developer.

- There's a big difference between a thought and a gameplay idea. Anyone can go "Hey, what if my character could open the door with his genitals!" but then you sit down and talk about the ramifications of that and all the combinations of where it could go and most of the time shit is thrown in the bin. Believe me, we think of a tonne of things and end up using about 10% of it.

- Stuff costs, again especially when you're small. You have really limited funds, people have to eat there's rent to be paid. There's so much to do that even something that might seem small to "throw in" can suck up a week or two of a developer's time which is money often better spent elsewhere.

 

[BreakAtmo]

Certainly. A big constraint is available memory; ultra-fast IO can help mitigate that. Unreal 5 has some incredible looking tech where you don't need to decimate static meshes (may not work for skeletal/animated meshes, though).

But it still doesn't change the fact that you need a bajillion, very talented artists working like crazy. Consumers' expectations are always rising, so it's always a race upward above a rising waterline.

Click to shrink...

Thank you. I was discussing this a while ago with another dev who said something like half the art team's time is spent just trying to get their art to work with the damned hard drive I/O, so it made me think a team working on a game that will only ever be played on SSDs could breathe a lot easier. But yeah, I suppose any saved time with them just be spent making even more art. Thank you very much for what you do - I love games, but making them sounds like an utter ball-ache in a lot of ways.

 

[Hoot]

1) That making games and releasing good games sometimes is more of a miracle than anything else considering the amount of different things that has to click right in the process

2) Development process is not a straight line, not even a staircase (especially in the case of indies). It's like a wave where you go slow, then a sudden uptick of content, then slow again, then pull back because you might have to redo old stuff rather than work on new stuff, so it delays your whole schedule. Then back to slow progress again.

3) Devs will be the first to know or acknowledge that something in the game sucks and will usually be harsher on their own work during the process

 

[Messofanego]

Great thread and responses from devs here!

Not a dev, but basically reiterating that from having spoken to many devs at EGX, a lot of the things players want or their feedback has already been known to the team and either they tried and tested it out so there's a reason they didn't do it or they're aware of all the issues and just need the time to fix them.

 

[THANKS]

Random blast from my 10 years inside:

• Fixing things, even simple things in a live service game, takes longer than you think because there's so much testing involved to make sure your fix does not screw up the rest of the game
• Games ship with hundreds if not thousands of very minor bugs - things like object pop-in or invisible warning messages. When the release date is locked, you just have to decide whether it is worth the time and risk to make the fix.
• Interns do not run the social media channel. It's a full profession.
• Never met a lazy game dev
• You know the rough review score range your game will get before it comes out. Game devs are gamers after all and can tell when a game is going to be well-received. The same goes for console launches - it's obvious what will go down well and what will not.
• People think that delaying a game is the answer to any problem in pre-release. It's way more complicated than that. Delaying a game means more cost which means you need to gain more sales. Look at Driveclub... delayed by a year and then the studio was shut down.
• Often the "auteur directors" that people idolise on these boards have a reputation as very challenging to work with. Day to day, it's better to work with someone who accepts collaboration.
• People seem to forget that "game developers" are just regular people with lives, partners, kids, bills etc. We are not some mystical wizards - we just learned how to make games and got that job. Yes, we got a cool job and yes we LOVE games but not everything in game dev is glamorous. Sometimes you're working on a part of the game that's really low impact or not all that exciting.

 

[Chackan]

Would like to hear your thoughs on which is better, delaying a game to avoid crunch or embracing that finish line crunch in order to meet deadlines.

I imagine it is a different situation for each game/studio, but I often say that I would prefer a game to be delayed in order to avoid devs crunching, but is that really the best option?

 

[snausages]

I'd be curious to hear what devs think of this '60fps as a standard' thing that gets thrown around a lot in next gen discussions. As an outsider it seems to get overly simplified down to 'just lower the resolution and it will be fine' but from what little I can gather it's not at all like this.

Also we have seen lots of games get delayed since Covid, besides the obvious stress of the time we're living in are there things particular to game dev that make WFH really difficult?