Why have game dev cycles (specifically for western RPGs) gotten so ridiculously long only to put out a bad product? Fallout 3 and New Vegas both had 2 year dev cycles, Oblivion and Morrowind each had 4 year cycles but now games take (in the case of tes and fallout) decades to come out only to be bad when they do. What gives? That's just bethesda too, CDproject Red had cyberpunk 2077 in development for 6 fricking years and the game was terrible. I could go on and on, but what is the deal? Is this on purpose? In the 2000's we were getting masterpiece after masterpiece, it's been an entire decade with basically nothing besides RDR2 and GTA5
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Money.
Why put out new game when you're still riding the mass amount of cash you made off the past game + DLCs?
The publisher is also chasing even higher sales than the last game. So they let the devs have all the time and money they need.
yeah but youd think if the devs have all the time theyd need, new games would be getting better not worse.
Large teams cause a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation where the game has no cohesion or direction, just "content." Long dev cycles in a large company also mean a bunch of people joining on and leaving, which causes ideas to go half-finished or barely implemented as the rest of the team either has to try and figure out the old employee's work or cut it out entirely.
Apparently CDPR switched gears midway through like morons and decided on a completely different game.
Too many cooks.
Used to be that if a game was gonna have vegetation littered around the maps that one of the artists would have to get around to making it after they were finished with the important shit. Couldn't make it in time for shipping? Then frick the plants.
Now there's a dedicated plant modelling guy. Probably someone else too thats got a PhD in plant research consulting plant experts. Not to mention a technical artist whose specialty includes ensuring leaves realistically swaying in the wind. And with their powers combined they'll be able to push out a single bush in about six months.
I blame everything on the open world
cdpr was developing cyberpunk 2077 while the witcher 3 was still in development, I have no idea why they decided to announce it in fricking 2012. also cdpr had to switch from making a 3rd person to first person game and no its not a simple switch.
as for why development takes so long the answer is: updating or switching engines, working on multiple projects simultaneously (starfield, tes6, etc.), and overhauling assets plus everything else. fallout 3 and nv share a lot more with each other than they do with 4.
>shitty off-topic image with shitty normietuber
>muh east-v-west fallacy
>misleading info to make facetious claim
2/10 b8
They expanded scope and grapix.
you are a gay fat moron. better graphics does not explain adding 5+ years to a dev cycle
It does though. Some jackoff could make at least 10% of an old game's total assets in the time it takes them to make 1 decent looking shrub or vehicle model in a modern game.
But that's not it and you specifically left out the other part to be a facetious moron, again. Scope. Old games not only have simpler assets, but by a huge margin less of them. Which fits into the widened "scope" of games.
Frick (You), Black.
way too much money which causes feature creep to try and maximize the audience which lead to studios having to have huge inefficient teams, combined with absolute piss poor management because management is trying to kiss up to the investors on super short deadlines and you get rushed halfbaked games that are barely done before deadline.
The crunch that happens also makes the programmers sloppier because they're overworked which means poorer output
your logic doesn't even make sense because all of the games you mentioned are big by default, of course they are gonna take a lot of time and money to make.
fallout 3 and new vegas took 2 years each to make, are you saying those arent big games?
yes. combine them both and you'll get fallout 76 map size.
not to mention the high poly count and all the other stuff that slows the development
Because pushing out a game in two years means you're not getting paid for 8 years of development from moronic angel investors and money launderers.
There is another reason though which is highlighted in a book about software engineering. Basically the more people you put on a job the longer that job takes.
I don't think anyone that hasn't made a game realizes just how fricking difficult it is, and what a monstrous undertaking modern AAA games are.
GRAPHICS ARE THE PROBLEM!
MODERN AAA ARE SIMPLY TOO EXPENSIVE TO MAKE!
It's really that simple. Go back to 2007 graphics and we can go back to:
>Creative art and design
>Risk taking gameplay that aims for specific demographics of players instead of the lowest common denominator
>More game releases, faster patches, shorter download times
>Saved computational power can be used for larger levels, more advanced A.I. and systems.
Graphics are a prisoners dilemma
>Marketing team called, they want bigger numbers, they have outsourced asset creation to 5 different studios.
>Since you are the only person we employ who can code outside of javascript your job will be accurately simulating the response of horse schlongs to ambient temperature while also implementing everything else
>If you have time make sure to represent our companies views on social media and use the required hashtags