• Captain Janeway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    500+ people for a videogame is insane. That’s kind of cool - despite the problems they faced. I feel like these games don’t reflect the number of people being hired for them. I’m not sure it should linearly scale (probably not), but they seem like they scale down rather than up with an increase in staff.

    I feel like modern producers are missing the forest for the trees. Games are not successful for being infinitely large. Skyrim is small by today’s standards. So is Oblivion. So are hundreds of other contemporary indie games that have captured the hearts of thousands.

    It’s not about more content. It’s about content that feels deeper. Depth over breadth. Baldurs Gate 3 proves that out. I don’t think you can expect these large groups of 500 people to all work towards a deeper game without major changes in roles. I’m no expert by any means, but I am a software engineer with some side-hobby game development experience. I think games are flat because mechanics aren’t growing with the power. We’re getting graphics, dialogue, and places. But the places aren’t any more “deep” than 5 years ago. The dialogue isn’t more interesting. The graphics are nice - but hardly why people buy games. I want to capture the “anything is possible” feeling when I hop into a game. BG3 recaptured that illusion for me for a long time.

    /Rant

    TL;Dr developers can’t throw more bodies at this problem. It’s an artistic and structural problem. They need to reframe how they create the art. It can’t be mass produced without ending up flat.

    • stringere@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like these games don’t reflect the number of people being hired for them. I’m not sure it should linearly scale (probably not), but they seem like they scale down rather than up with an increase in staff.

      This is what happens when game studios are being run by people that only view video games as a means to generate money. They do not understand the industry or craft involved and will blindly apply whatever the newest MBA management strategy is the new hotness, throw money and headcount at projects. And cannot understand that more is usually not better when it comes to video game development.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s interesting playing indie games and seeing how a small or solo team can put out great experiences.

      I kinda feel that a better pipeline for triple A games might be to start with small teams making indie scale games, and the ones that play test great can then get the triple A treatment to add art, music, dialog, additional content, etc. Games that fall short can maybe be released as “indie games” (game genre, obviously not indie published).

    • And009@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Their workflow isn’t designed to produce great games. I’m not sure what they’re achieving

  • x4740N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Starfield got so boring I stopped playing it

    Starfield is basically a point and click simulator with barren planets

    The only chance it has to rescue it are the modders

    • Zozano@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Modders don’t want to touch it. What have they got to work with?

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    In the few years I’ve been making games for shits and giggles, the best rule I’ve developed is Always Be Shipping. You can tweak like crazy in the last hours of a project. You can build whole concepts only to throw them out. So long as you have A Game to push out the door, day-of, you are free to do whatever the hell you want.

    Doing your first level first or your last level last is absolute rookie shit.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. Could you elaborate what you mean with “Doing your first level first or your last level last is absolute rookie shit.”?

      • teegus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        7 months ago

        They are saying: do the most important bits first, so that if you run out of time, you still have the important parts in place.

        • gerryflap@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          This also goes for many things in general, not just gamedev. I used to be a teaching assistant at the University that I was studying at, and this was the main thing people seemed to get wrong in their projects. Instead of going for the basics and building from there, they just went for all the fancy cool features, or the most optimal algorithm. Then, when the deadline inevitably came around, they would have basically nothing working correctly. Sometimes I even warned them, and yet it still went wrong.

  • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think it’s pretty clear they were struggling to incorporate all the elements together, which ate a lot of their time. In the end, that resulted in player colonies basically getting thrown out and the game being a lot smaller than if they had just dedicated all of their time to worldbuilding.