48 réponses à ce sujet

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Duke Nukem doesn't count.

Why not?

[countofhell]

Answering for the TC's question game developing takes even longer generation after generation, maybe even progressive. Quantum physic might improve a lot on this and decrease the game developing time partly of course. When our civilization will understand completely the Quantum physic everything in the electronics will going to be ultra fast.

However computers and electronics and processors does not have creativity, don't have passion and they don't need to relax and sleep. Everything else depends on the game developers.

[RoboticWater]

Why not?

Probably because it's an outlier.

 

I'd say that there's a difference between a long development time (5-6 years) and DNF's 13 years (I think?), jumping between developers, and ultimately getting shoved out as fast as possible by Gearbox.

[Catastrophy]

Time is not a measurement for quality.

[LinksOcarina]

That was a better game than people give it credit for.

It wasn't good, but it was better than its reputation.

I do like how transparently EA rushed it though. The devs announced a delay, and then EA just went ahead and released the unfinished game almost immediately. Never has EA's impatience been so plainly displayed.

 

EA in 1999 is not the same EA in 2016 though. EA would never get away with that today, probably why they are giving them so much time. 

[The Hierophant]

EA in 1999 is not the same EA in 2016 though. EA would never get away with that today, probably why they are giving them so much time. 

Never underestimate EA, and i mean it.

[SKAR]

I don't think longer development times necessarily equate to a better game. More polished certainly but at this juncture, the fundamentals have already been decided.

Do you think ME3 would have been better if they gave it and extra year? Great game for sure but I wanted to see the"full" might of the Reapers. Maybe see more sub types, missions,etc. We never saw the processors or transports that we saw at the end of ME2. I was a little disappointed that we didn't see more reaper ground forces. I just wish we got the full experience. Considering the might of the reapers I felt like we were missing out in a way. But MP was a good investment and it paid off really well. ME3 did do that right.

[LinksOcarina]

Never underestimate EA, and i mean it.

 

What an empty statement. We can say that about every single publisher in the gaming industry and it would make just as much sense.

[SKAR]

What an empty statement. We can say that about every single publisher in the gaming industry and it would make just as much sense.

EA has some of the best resources.

[LinksOcarina]

EA has some of the best resources.

 

yeah...but that's not what he was referring to. If it is then my bad then, but I think it's more of a snide remark regarding how EA treats their games or timetables. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

EA in 1999 is not the same EA in 2016 though. EA would never get away with that today, probably why they are giving them so much time.

They didn't really get away with it then. They released a whole new version of the game months later and sent a free copy (by mail), plus a free copy of UO, to every registered owner. EA knew they'd messed up, and they did a pretty good job of reacting.

[SKAR]

yeah...but that's not what he was referring to. If it is then my bad then, but I think it's more of a snide remark regarding how EA treats their games or timetables.

I see.

[DreamerM]

The difference between Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition convinced me of the benefits of development time. DA:I was pushed back a year, and the additional depth they were able to put in the game as a result made all the difference.

[goofyomnivore]

I think EA / BioWare learned from that 2009-2012 stretch where BioWare released a game every year. You can't do RPGs like sports game and have one every year plus DLC support, and not to mention you had TOR releasing in 2011 too. Either BioWare bit off more than they can chew or EA shoved a lot on them in that four year stretch, but probably a little of both.

[ZipZap2000]

Isn't air softer than water?

*grab a cup coffee*

Air has no form young one.

Only farts can be like air.

Be like a fart.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

All publicly traded companies live off its quarterly cash flow = (qtrly income - qtrly cost) (put simply). If its negative, you live on your reserves. All must be explained in the qtrly financial statements to investors. Too many negative quarters and investors get jittery, which can lead to stock dumping = company loses x% of its value. Lose too much and nasty things can happen.

 

What does the above mean in terms of game development?  Simple. If AAA titles take too long, cost projections are out of the window and there will be a revenue shortfall.... leading to any of the above possibilities. This is the main reason why some AAA titles get rushed out to market unfinished.

 

EA Sports titles come out yearly. Shooters, I'm unsure but aRPGs have a 4-5 year bake period.  If you break the cycle by extending the development effort, you take a risk.

 

BTW, read this: http://www.hardocp.c...580m_disappear/

 

 

 

 

 

[malloc]

Probably because it's an outlier.

 

I'd say that there's a difference between a long development time (5-6 years) and DNF's 13 years (I think?), jumping between developers, and ultimately getting shoved out as fast as possible by Gearbox.

 

Both scenarios can be bad.

 

-Shorter development time could lead to the developers not having enough time to implement features.

-Longer development time could lead to the developers not adapting to different technologies that have emerged since they started developing(game just feels outdated because it spent too much time in limbo)

 

The answer is that there is no right answer for development time, the best thing to do is to analyze development time based on the project you are working on. Although it is hard to get a handle on when the product will be out until you actually start developing.

[The One True Nobody]

I hate to be negative but I generally feed off the atmosphere and all I'm getting from the forum today is negativity.

So here it is from a place of pessimism:

Black Flag. Great game right? Comes after two to three lack lustre installments, one of which was revelations. Widely criticised, this installment triggered a boycott from the fanbase of their mp dlc content and even a week long boycott of the mp itself.

This was around the time ME3 released. So it was overshadowed by events taking place on the BSN though it did get Ubisofts attention. They released a statement addressing our concerns.

Then came AC 3

Both games really annoyed their fan bases, Ubisoft saw fit to say to themselves:

If we give them rolled gold for the next installment they'll all buy the next two regardless of how crappy they are.



Ubisoft was right.


You could argue that this is EA's attempt to black flag us . That the installment after this will be a bug riddled mess with no direction focused around the MP.



But I wont do that.



Instead I'm going to encourage everyone to think happy thoughts about the future.

Positivity is the path to inner peace.

Negativity is a reflection of your insecurities.


Only by leaving your insecurities behind can you find inner peace, which leads to happiness.

Think happy thoughts BioFans.


*Sips Green Leaf Tea*

 

Bit of a bad comparison there. Unity was released around the same time as another installment, Rogue. Rogue was good. Unity backlash just caused it to fall by the wayside. And the game after Unity was much better. What sets Unity apart, then? It was the first AC game on a new platform. They didn't spend enough time making it work right. They rectified that with Syndicate.

Why is this a bad comparison, then? Because Syndicate was good? No, actually; because Andromeda is the first Mass Effect game on newer platforms this time. They're spending time on it, and add to that, they've already produced a fantastic product on these platforms in the form of Dragon Age: Inquisition. If anything, we don't really have to worry about the game being broken.

 

With any degree of brains behind the project, they'll take the chance to start a new plotline in Andromeda and will plan it out more thoroughly so as to avoid another change in creative direction like the one that resulted in ME3 moving away from the original plot plan. Hopefully they'll also have the smarts to make it something relatively more malleable and less-ambitious, considering they need to plan for EA's tendency not to give their devs enough time to produce anything more involved than a twelve-hour action game. >_>;;

[Dekibra]

*Sips Green Leaf Tea*

 

 

*Stirs tea*

 

 

*pours tea*

 

 

*gives ZipZap a gallon of Ryncol*

 

you obviously need it ^^

[ZipZap2000]

I've clearly gone too far with the Krogan SPECTRE thing.

You people aren't going to let me stop now are you?


*Woefully Sips Ryncol*

[Monk]

Bioware has been working on Mass Effect Andromeda for quite some time. Almost five years. They have devoted a lot of money and time to make sure this game is the best it can be and it'll probably pay off. EA appears to be giving bioware resources from many of their trademark games. They've had time to plan out thoroughly and make all the pieces fit. It may be years away but for the next installment do you think they should take more time in developing future installments given they have the money and resources? This goes for dragon age as well. Is two or three years enough time? I understand the demand for games but at the expense of quality do you really want to see a game earlier rather than later? To me Three years in between seems like a good solid amount of time. Maybe four. Maybe make more DLC? Any thoughts?

 

*thinks of Duke Nuke'm (Took)Forever* Time is relative. Once the ground work for this next leg of the series is set, the subsequent entries shouldn't take as long. Because honestly, if they're set to make a shittake game, it's going to be that. They'll take the time needed, if necessary, for the game to be good. I mean, as much as i enjoy DA2 (shocker, i know; SarcasticHawke is the only Hawke) they were determined to cut corners with it (thinks of the same three maps retreaded again and again and…).

[SKAR]

*thinks of Duke Nuke'm (Took)Forever* Time is relative. Once the ground work for this next leg of the series is set, the subsequent entries shouldn't take as long. Because honestly, if they're set to make a shittake game, it's going to be that. They'll take the time needed, if necessary, for the game to be good. I mean, as much as i enjoy DA2 (shocker, i know; SarcasticHawke is the only Hawke) they were determined to cut corners with it (thinks of the same three maps retreaded again and again and…).

Yah.

[Hammerstorm]

Air has no form young one.

Only farts can be like air.

Be like a fart.

 

I have seen Avatar the Last airbender. You can't teach me anything. 

[Sartoz]

The difference between Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition convinced me of the benefits of development time. DA:I was pushed back a year, and the additional depth they were able to put in the game as a result made all the difference.

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Bio took a year (in man hours) to modify the FB3 engine for a aRPG style game play. Also, the game had to work with five hardware platforms.  DA:I is a bad example to use, imo.