...because they're doing that new working parent thing of avoiding doing any parenting by throwing themselves into their work.
-
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.
Do you think AAA studios should calm down with their pursuit of visual showcase and high production value?
- Thread starter Kaivan
- Start date
Oh please. If anything a "yes" vote ITT is a vote for homogenization. There's plenty of room in the AAA space for both games that push high fidelity graphics and games that opt for a more stylized aesthetic.
I'd rather have more games in the AA and below space. I'd be happy with 2010 level of graphical fidelity. Indie games have shown that you can deliver amazing experiences on a much lower budget. Rather than developers spending years working their employees to the bone to deliver graphical showcases, I'd prefer to see scaled back games produced in a more ethical way. I don't think game quality would diminish for me personally.
I don't play many AAA games but when I do I enjoy the high fidelity spectacle. I would be sad to see that go away. I understand the argument for a healthy working environment but I imagine that has way more to do with investors, publishers, and management than if a game design is pursuing bleeding edge tech or not.
Of course, but I've been thinking that for long time now. The graphics arms race is by far the least interesting thing going on in game development for as long as I can remember.
Only because of crunch culture.
Otherwise you can already get more creative titles everywhere, It would be silly to wait for AAA to stagnate in the area they contribute towards the industry, which is one you cannot pursue without the resources.
There is already a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too, but crunch time does exist because of it.
Otherwise you can already get more creative titles everywhere, It would be silly to wait for AAA to stagnate in the area they contribute towards the industry, which is one you cannot pursue without the resources.
There is already a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too, but crunch time does exist because of it.
Overall COD is a very consistent franchises in terms of art direction. And in a good way. They are highly creative despite annual releases, and have a lot of original designs. The few times they got to play with more futuristic settings are the most obvious examples.
COD were never the FPS with the most advanced engine, but they succeeded to look as modern as the rest thanks to their art directors.
Stop saying crunch exists because of poor management decisions. There have there been cases where its because of that, sure, but most of the time Crunch exists because of the nature of game development. You are correct about player expectations, and I get to that in a bit.
If it was a linear path from A to B it would be easily Manageable and would mean the more games you make the more efficient the process becomes, but its not. No matter how many times you make a game, the experience is never the same. This is because the industry is always moving forward, there is a insurmountable amount of competition among studios who all try to fight for consumer attention that drives constant change and innovation. The only thing that keeps projects spiraling out of control are the skill and experience of those involved and how to avoid time sinks and project traps and this includes management! On top of that you have the publishers and money men who keep things from not costing too much. That is usually how projects get cancelled, changed, etc. Devs have the aspirations to make the greatest game ever, every damn time. and management usually keeps it within bounds and publishers cut when its needed.
I would even go as far as to say, broken products happen because of consumer expectations. the Early access model exists because of increasing development times and ever demanding consumer expectations and demand to release products every few years or so. Too long a gap and a developer is considered dead (DEV X dont make games anymore) and the gamer move to the next big thing like locust. We are all screaming for attention into an over saturated market and we do our best to give you what you want. but its never enough. people rip you apart because of a stutter here and there while they have not updated their graphics card or system drivers in a decade.
For me personally, the job is the best thing that happened to me. working on projects with amazing talented people. each giving it their all. The worst thing are the average consumers who don't give a single fuck about those who made their next big game. they play and complain, play and complain. Then you have some amazing fans who spend insane amounts of time playing our products, sticking to it, streaming it every day, making content on youtube, or make fan art, mods, and cosplay. anyway, went a bit into a tangent here.
If management doesn't have enough resources to keep projects rolling on timetables that are healthy for individuals, a series of poor decisions was almost certainly made. There is a difference between a foreseeable problem you allocate personnel for at the tail end of a project as certain milestones are not realistically hit and grueling crunch that goes on for protracted spans of time. Too often we are hearing about the latter.
I have also personally dealt with crunch in both the retail and insurance industries, which are notably insane and inhumane. I even was a manager at a brokerage during the open-enrollment season and had to quit because the company owner "didn't agree" with my scheduling practices. We butted heads because I had the gall to insist it was more productive for people to go home on-time and get 8 hours sleep and food in their guts. Plus, I wanted them to not always feel so fucking stressed they were taking near hourly cigarette breaks and getting plastered religiously on Friday nights, often lamenting botched meetings with clients or pending performance reviews.
If to keep things on track, you need single employees to essentially do the work of 1.5 or 2 people for prolonged periods of time you fucked up your timetable and proportionate staffing. If you decide to overwork your existing staff anyway, not only do you have shitty workplace ethics, you risk burning out your employees. I don't have game industry numbers, but overworking people typically leads to notably decreased productivity on a per-employee level and high turnover. As a manager, taking actions that result in those two items... is a poor decision.
Oh, and most key decisions a manager will ever make are entirely reactionary. You are in a position where you evaluate whether certain courses of actions are worth pursuing or not. A lot of folks don't have the luxury of always putting others well-being first, because they answer to senior management or stockholders. Yet you gotta ask yourself when enough is enough?
Absolutely not. If no game ever tries to push the envelope, then, what's the point? I love being surprised by how good games can look.
No, I don't think they should try to stop pushing the bar, their just has to be better ways than how Naughty Dog does it.
No i did not buy a high end PC for nothing.
I do however wish there was less crunch and give developers more time to make great looking games. :)
I do however wish there was less crunch and give developers more time to make great looking games. :)
from a gamedev perspective, i agree
as a consumer, i don't
when I play a modern AAA game, i'm probably just buying it for the production values
i wish the 90s would come back and top-level development and innovation went hand-in-hand, but that seems to be ancient history
as a consumer, i don't
when I play a modern AAA game, i'm probably just buying it for the production values
i wish the 90s would come back and top-level development and innovation went hand-in-hand, but that seems to be ancient history