-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Minimal development time for a game should be at least 3 years
- Thread starter klik
- Start date
- Status
Content would only be "removed" if it was developed under the base game's budget- as in "we budgeted for this to be part of the main game, but then removed it to sell separately instead". Which might happen very rarely (I can only judge for the games I worked on, where I never saw it). If it was from the get go developed as a separate DLC budget because it did not fit into the original financial planning, and was never intended to be part of the purchase, it is not "removed".
Sadly no one ever considers that when complaining about "cut content".
Ah, I see you are part of the famous "people who like different things from me are wrong, and only I know what's right" club. Good to know ;)
While you're not wrong that fantastic games can be created in a year, Naughty Dog reportedly have terrible levels of crunch. Uncharted 1, 2, and 3 were all made in 2 years and it was an endless crunch nightmare for the studio. It's not a healthy way to make games and the cracks were showing very badly with Uncharted 3. The game needed more time, but it didn't get more time.
Lost Legacy is kinda like Crysis: Warhead, just without the environment reuse. It's the kind of expansion that can be made in a relatively short time if the developer's motor is already running, so to speak. You can hit the ground running. Where games tend to trip up is when they introduce major design changes and a lot of time is spent figuring out the game's identity. Creating new content for an existing template is a lot easier than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Dying Light: The Following was an expansion that, AFAIK, was developed in about 12 months. A fleshed out 10 hour long open world campaign in a new environment with the buggy being a major new game mechanic. But Dying Light 2 is not the kind of project that could be made in 12 months.
OP can't even list a game that had less than 3 years of dev time.
Meanwhile, Majora's Mask was mostly built in a year and is one of the best sequels of all time.
Meanwhile, Majora's Mask was mostly built in a year and is one of the best sequels of all time.
You're actually fucking clueless holy shit. This is an astoundingly stupid take. Rarely, if ever, is content "cut" from a release to be added in later.
To call it a scam is the cherry on top of the shit cake that is your misinformation.
No one who has actually played Battlefield V could possibly think this.
And this ocming from someone who was playing BF1 the day before the EA Access for BFV started....if it was the same game(just DLC) I would easily be able to tell.
People who hadnt played BF1 at all or in a very very long time I could maybe........maybe forgive for being this wrong.
Anyone else GTFO...BFV might not be perfect but calling it BF1 DLC is far from the truth.
Pretty much your whole OP is just wrong.
Yep, it was actually in development alongside Origins, the latter being the main one iirc
the level of coordination required is mind blowing. who ever is managing this stuff must be pretty smrt.
Except all AC and COD games take 3 years to make i.e. your ideal development time for a AAA.
This is a thread backfire
Because parallel dev is something that is absolutely not possible, how could they ever make two things at the same time when they have hundreds of people to work on those.
I mean a lot of the games that are announced that come out in a year or 2 were worked on long before that, just that nothing wrong happened from announcement to release.
We don't always know entire development time for titles if it isn't stated somewhere later in something.
You can work on more than 1 thing at once.
We don't always know entire development time for titles if it isn't stated somewhere later in something.
You can work on more than 1 thing at once.
It's pretty bad. His use of Scott Bakula as an avatar has made me think less off Scott Bakula now.
So, you literally describe digesting all other games as a cycle, but can't see it as a hamster wheel as well?
A game's development should take the time it takes to create it.
There shouldn't be any specific delivery time linked to it and when it happens it leads to bad things more often than not.
There shouldn't be any specific delivery time linked to it and when it happens it leads to bad things more often than not.
A lot of the animations, assets and even mechanics were reused from Origins so this doesn't come as a surprise to me.
Fun fact: if you own BF1, you can simply play BFV using this command "BF1.exe -change_setting WWII". I don't know why it took them lazy devs two years to make a game with a different setting, definitely feels like a dlc to me.
Yeesh, what a thread. I would recommend you do more research into these topics before you post, OP, as pretty much everything you said is misinformed/incorrect.
There should not be a mandated time to make a game. Ideally, production should take as long as it needs, as appropriate for a given project. A long dev cycle isn't necessarily a good thing either - there are so many games out there that have taken years to come out but have been riddled with mismanagment/lack of unified vision behind the scenes.
There should not be a mandated time to make a game. Ideally, production should take as long as it needs, as appropriate for a given project. A long dev cycle isn't necessarily a good thing either - there are so many games out there that have taken years to come out but have been riddled with mismanagment/lack of unified vision behind the scenes.
Fun fact: OP laid this turd down and hasn't replied since. Does he not want to discuss his amazing points?
I understand. It still takes a level of dedication that you don't have in other industries.
AC Origins was also developed in three years. 2014-2017. Odyssey began development when the Syndicate team finished with their title in 2015.
I think the part where they greated the mammoth handcrafted open world set in Greece with hundreds of fully voiced, animated, and scripted quests in 3 years is more pertinent. No doubt some assets from the game set in Egypt were used where art design and cultural consistency allowed. But the boogieman of asset reuse is often rather wishy-washy. In AC's case it often seems to be some vague "Greek architecture all looks the same to me" thing. Notice you never see people posting concrete examples of overt asset reuse in these games? If it was so rampant you'd think there'd be galleries showing just how much content in Odyssey is directly from its predecessor.
This isn't like Fallout: New Vegas where you look in a random direction and see Fallout 3 assets either verbatim or retextured to look New Vegas-ey in a "you're not fooling anyone" way.
This is one of the most embarrassing threads I've seen in a long while.
OP not only abandoned the thread, he/she has NO idea how game development works, and comes off as an entitled brat. Way to go.
Origins seems like a significant step up from the previous AC games, it feels so different (and better) to play, it might as well be a game in another franchise. Odyssey seems to be more in line with how the Far Cry sequels have been lately, which is to say, not that different. A new story and characters or a new setting isn't enough to make it seem like a reasonable leap from the last game.
If the Origins team made the game in 3 years, then it really shows how talented they are.
Now this is the kind of irony I can appreciate, i.e., lazily making a thread to call devs lazy.
This thread is the gift that just keeps on giving, or, "Putting actual time and effort in making a post? Doesn't exist, sorry."
I was wrong, there's a whole lot of mental gymnastics in play here, that has to take some effort.
Last edited:
- Status