Comment on At Gamescom, it felt like the industry now has a plan: make games quicker | Opinion

Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• ampersandrew@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Do you think they get better if they take longer to make? These development times are a fairly recent phenomenon.

  source

  • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s not a gurantee, but cutting the time down when QA is already paper thin ain’t gonna make shit better and likely won’t even retain the quality it currently has.

    source

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Who says the time getting cut is in QA? Maybe the games just scope down.

      source

      • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        The use of generative AI tools implies scope isn’t going to change at all.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ms_lane@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Who says the time getting cut is in QA?

        History and Common Sense.

        source
      • callouscomic@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I read this as shortening development time (“quicker”), not necessarily reducing the sheer amount of slop they pile in and call “content.”

        source
  • turmacar@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The problem with AAA games is the development time is longer, the time spent working on the final game is not.

    Time and time again when a game as been “in development” for 5/7/10+ years, the game that shipped was only really being worked on for the last year or two, once they finally got the design and gameplay nailed down and worked on the final game. Anthem is one of the more egregious examples in that some of the developers working on the game learned at the E3 presentation a year before launch that the game involved flying.

    There’s an iceberg of effort and only a fraction of it gets released.

    source
• dukemirage@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Games generally, in every budget class, take longer to develop but they are not generally worse.

  source
• raptir@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Doom 2 came out less than a year after Doom.

  source

  • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Does that mean you would prefer sequels to just be glorified map additions to the game you already own? If Doom 1 and 2 were done today, Doom 2 would have been a DLC.

    source

    • psx_crab@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Nah dude, today we have Death of the Outsider, and Blood Dragon, both doesn’t need the base game to run and is standalone, even though they use the same asset and engine from their base game. Not to mention ODST and Reach, both come out within 3 years of Halo 3. All phenomenal, even though they’re using same engine, same asset, with some additional content and new map. The scope is also significantly smaller than the base game. They’re all standalone even though they’re DLC.

      Also Tear of the Kingdom use the same map and asset, and it’s considered sequel instead of DLC. same thing goes for Majora’s Mask which they did within a year after Ocarina of Time. It’s totally fine to do that as long as the game is good.

      source
    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      And GTA Vice City was originally planned as an expansion to GTA III, then turned into an independent game and released just a year after GTA III.

      source
    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Maybe that’s the problem.

      source