• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Games take too long to make these days....

Batiman

Member
Years ago... AAA talk started by referring to critically acclaimed games.

And you know exactly what I am babbling about.
I think your still confused. AAA never started referring to critically acclaimed games. Most AAAs are actually not critically acclaimed. This has always been the case
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
You sure? We are going to need some facts to back that up mister.

As far as I know, AAA means "game developed by big ass company with big ass budget". That game being successful or not doesn't matter.
Yes I been gaming since the late 70's sir.
Used to be this type of talk in gaming mags etc.
Not all of those classics back in the day had AAA budgets just like today in fact.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
AAA has always been about production and budget and never about critical acclaim.

Games are called AAA long before they even start getting any critical reviews.

You're confusing two very different things here.





[/URL][/URL]
EDIT: right from what you posted. "One of the first video games to be produced at a blockbuster or AAA scale"
Blockbuster=critically acclaimed
I think your still confused. AAA never started referring to critically acclaimed games. Most AAAs are actually not critically acclaimed. This has always been the case
That's BUDGET and a MODERN take on the term.
 
Last edited:

Surf Ninja

Member
Let's take an example like a pipe as a weapon. In the PS1 days, you could take a rectangle and wrap it on itself and color it grey with a few pixels on it for "texture." Then you'd pin it to a character's low-poly "hand" and they'd swing it and knock into another character's huge hitbox and the other character would fly backward with a stock sound effect.

Take the same scenario for modern hardware. The pipe will start off as a 3D cylinder rendered at 4K and from there an artist will build it out with rust, divots, pitting, maybe some pipe fittings like a 90-degree turn with threading inside. It will have to exhibit some weight in the hands of the character wielding it, whose hands are no longer primitive triangles with some lines drawn on to represent fingers like on PS1, but are now fully scaffolded with individual joints for each finger. Those joints have to behave naturally, so they need to be set to have limits on their range of motion without them looking too stiff or it will break the immersion. Anyway, those fingers need to now wrap around that pipe accounting for the volume of the cylinder in the hand in a way that doesn't clip or stutter. From there, when the character swings the pipe, it needs to have "weight" to its swing, to the motion of the arm, the motion of the entire body needs to work in kind to convey realism, the facial expression of the swinger needs to change to reflect the action. Then it makes contact with another character and it needs to react realistically, and the other character also needs to react to getting hit realistically. Blood or sweat needs to spatter in a way that adds to the drama of the moment, a sound effect done by a professional actor needs to be cut in and timed correctly, as well as the sound of the pipe hitting the character.

I'm just riffing here, I don't really know what I'm talking about but the graphics alone on modern games can't just be spit out by typing "render realistic man hands" into the RPG Maker console.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Also, many people who find AAA awful still refer to them as AAA to single them out from indie and AA games. If it's truly critical acclaim, no one would be referring to them as AAA at all. remember that Call of Duty, Cyberpunk, Far Cry, Assassins creed, etc are all technically AAA as well
this shit is used for the production values of a video game, not for its critical acclaim. Even if we went by that metric, truly talented people can still make a masterpiece in 3 or less years. Metal Gear Solid 2, 96 on metacritic, literal masterpiece, was made in only 3 years. Prince of Persia, the sands of time, game started development in 2001 and came out in 2003, 92 on metacritic. Most games these days besides elden ring don't even reach scores that high, and they take significantly more time and effort to create.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That's BUDGET and a MODERN take on the term.

You should probably read the history section of the wikipedia article I linked above. The term didn't even start becoming used for video games before the late 90's and its first uses were in examples like FFVII, games which were made with higher budgets and assumed that they will make their budget back without much issue.

Critical reception has never been a part of the classification.

If you believed that, that's on you. But historically AAA has always been used in reference to budget and marketing.
 
Last edited:

Batiman

Member
That's BUDGET and a MODERN take on the term.
Sorry but you’re still wrong. I think somewhere along the line you’ve been mistaken and maybe always thought that was the case. It’s not and never was. I can list you dozens of critically flopped AAA games since the term started being used up until today.
 
Last edited:

Justin9mm

Member
The way I see it, expectations for games are a lot higher now and at least for AAA titles there is a lot more involved with the development, especially when developing new gameplay features and pushing the current gen tech. However, there needs to be a balance between making a good game vs the time spent and efficiency of the development. I truly believe there are some studios wasting money and resources with inefficient time and production management, and when a game releases that is still buggy/broken, it is obvious there were development issues.

I think some games do take too long to make but each game is different and it's not like you can definitively say it should take X amount of time for all games.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Sorry but you’re still wrong. I think somewhere along the line you’ve been mistaken and maybe always thought that was the case. It’s not and never was. I can list you dozens of critically flopped AAA games since the term started being used up until today.
You should probably read the history section of the wikipedia article I linked above. The term didn't even start becoming used for video games before the late 90's and its first uses were in examples like FFVII, games which were made with higher budgets and assumed that they will make their budget back without much issue.

Critical reception has never been a part of the classification.

If you believed that, that's on you. But historically AAA has always been used in reference to budget and marketing.
One of the first video games to be produced at a blockbuster or AAA scale was Squaresoft's Final Fantasy VII (1997)
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Let's take an example like a pipe as a weapon. In the PS1 days, you could take a rectangle and wrap it on itself and color it grey with a few pixels on it for "texture." Then you'd pin it to a character's low-poly "hand" and they'd swing it and knock into another character's huge hitbox and the other character would fly backward with a stock sound effect.

Take the same scenario for modern hardware. The pipe will start off as a 3D cylinder rendered at 4K and from there an artist will build it out with rust, divots, pitting, maybe some pipe fittings like a 90-degree turn with threading inside. It will have to exhibit some weight in the hands of the character wielding it, whose hands are no longer primitive triangles with some lines drawn on to represent fingers like on PS1, but are now fully scaffolded with individual joints for each finger. Those joints have to behave naturally, so they need to be set to have limits on their range of motion without them looking too stiff or it will break the immersion. Anyway, those fingers need to now wrap around that pipe accounting for the volume of the cylinder in the hand in a way that doesn't clip or stutter. From there, when the character swings the pipe, it needs to have "weight" to its swing, to the motion of the arm, the motion of the entire body needs to work in kind to convey realism, the facial expression of the swinger needs to change to reflect the action. Then it makes contact with another character and it needs to react realistically, and the other character also needs to react to getting hit realistically. Blood or sweat needs to spatter in a way that adds to the drama of the moment, a sound effect done by a professional actor needs to be cut in and timed correctly, as well as the sound of the pipe hitting the character.

I'm just riffing here, I don't really know what I'm talking about but the graphics alone on modern games can't just be spit out by typing "render realistic man hands" into the RPG Maker console.
You raise a good point, but there comes a point where is all that extra detail really necessary? Will most people really notice the pipe slightly clipping through the main character's hand? or floating in the air slightly above the character's hand? That's the kind of stuff i'm advocating for, sacrificing detail for time. You could just create a 3d textured rusty cylinder that attaches to the character's hand like so and then have them attack enemies resuing an animation from another weighty object, say, a pole. That's what most games from 2006 to 2013 did and everyone was mostly fine with it
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
One of the first video games to be produced at a blockbuster or AAA scale was Squaresoft's Final Fantasy VII (1997)

Yes, it's talking about the PRODUCTION of FFVII as an AAA game. Production which happens before any kind of critical reception is applied.

Thank you for proving my point yourself lol.

FFVII was one of the first video games produced at a blockbuster (AAA) scale.[287] It was the most expensive video game ever developed up until then,[45] and its expensive advertisement campaign was also unprecedented for a video game.
 

TintoConCasera

Gold Member
Let's take an example like a pipe as a weapon. In the PS1 days, you could take a rectangle and wrap it on itself and color it grey with a few pixels on it for "texture." Then you'd pin it to a character's low-poly "hand" and they'd swing it and knock into another character's huge hitbox and the other character would fly backward with a stock sound effect.

Take the same scenario for modern hardware. The pipe will start off as a 3D cylinder rendered at 4K and from there an artist will build it out with rust, divots, pitting, maybe some pipe fittings like a 90-degree turn with threading inside. It will have to exhibit some weight in the hands of the character wielding it, whose hands are no longer primitive triangles with some lines drawn on to represent fingers like on PS1, but are now fully scaffolded with individual joints for each finger. Those joints have to behave naturally, so they need to be set to have limits on their range of motion without them looking too stiff or it will break the immersion. Anyway, those fingers need to now wrap around that pipe accounting for the volume of the cylinder in the hand in a way that doesn't clip or stutter. From there, when the character swings the pipe, it needs to have "weight" to its swing, to the motion of the arm, the motion of the entire body needs to work in kind to convey realism, the facial expression of the swinger needs to change to reflect the action. Then it makes contact with another character and it needs to react realistically, and the other character also needs to react to getting hit realistically. Blood or sweat needs to spatter in a way that adds to the drama of the moment, a sound effect done by a professional actor needs to be cut in and timed correctly, as well as the sound of the pipe hitting the character.

I'm just riffing here, I don't really know what I'm talking about but the graphics alone on modern games can't just be spit out by typing "render realistic man hands" into the RPG Maker console.
The thing being done is much more complicated now than before, true, but the tools that are being used nowadays are much easier and streamlined than how they were back in the day.
 

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
Its our fault. We complain when a game have a reasonable campaign of 6 to 10 hours. The market adjust itself.
I get it, games are expensive, but I rather have 6 hours of fun that I can revisit and enjoy, than feel that beat a game is such a chore that once you finish you never touch it again.

There is a reason I always revisit games from the 16~32bit era, they are fun and I get to enjoy them to completion without the feeling that I'm wasting my time through some BS that is put to the game so they achieved a longer gameplay time.
 

Surf Ninja

Member
You raise a good point, but there comes a point where is all that extra detail really necessary? Will most people really notice the pipe slightly clipping through the main character's hand? or floating in the air? That's the kind of stuff i'm advocating for, sacrificing detail for time. You could just create a 3d textured rusty cylinder that attaches to the character's hand like so and then have them attack enemies resuing an animation from another weighty object, say, a pole. That's what most games from 2006 to 2013 did and everyone was mostly fine with it
Yeah but in 1976 everyone was fine with two rectangles hitting a square across another, very long rectangle. Besides, those lower-detail games are being made, just by indies.
 

Lady Jane

Banned
I miss the older and focused Assassin's Creed games. The Ezio trilogy was so fun. Now they pay a thousand people and spend 5 years making a replica of a country that I will play for 8 hours before getting bored.
 
Last edited:

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Yes, it's talking about the PRODUCTION of FFVII as an AAA game. Production which happens before any kind of critical reception is applied.

Thank you for proving my point yourself lol.
I take blockbuster to mean a few things but I would never call a game with a AAA budget that reviews poorly a blockbuster game and I don't think anyone else would either 🤷‍♂️
So we can agree to disagree.
 

John Wick

Member
Is this like another joke thread? It's common sense why development time is taking longer. The games are getting bigger and more complex and the attention to detail in the world's is getting more and more life like. The visual differences alone speaks volumes.
 

OOGABOOGA

Banned
OMG Really!! You don't say!! you litterally just woke up today and discovered that games with great graphics, great pshycis, complex story, voice acting, open world take longer to make!! Wow great discovery, keep it up better late than never. Did you also know that we have PS5 and Corona now?
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Is this like another joke thread? It's common sense why development time is taking longer. The games are getting bigger and more complex and the attention to detail in the world's is getting more and more life like. The visual differences alone speaks volumes.
OMG Really!! You don't say!! you litterally just woke up today and discovered that games with great graphics, great pshycis, complex story, voice acting, open world take longer to make!! Wow great discovery, keep it up better late than never. Did you also know that we have PS5 and Corona now?
Yes. I know games take a lot of time because they're bigger budget, have better visuals, ETC. I'm saying that this is a problem and we need to cut more corners so shit can come out quicker
This forum has a problem with assholes trying to act like they're the smartest people on planet earth while never actually reading the first post
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Games get technically more complex despite easier to use tools and thus take more time to develop.

This is quite logicsl, OP. Unlike your thread.
 

OOGABOOGA

Banned
Yes. I know games take a lot of time because they're bigger budget, have better visuals, ETC. I'm saying that this is a problem and we need to cut more corners so shit can come out quicker
This forum has a problem with assholes trying to act like they're the smartest people on planet earth while never actually reading the first post
We don't care about cheap arcade or indie games, we want budget, we want more complex games and tech. If you want that old tech then go get Nintendo you will find alot of these old tech games jesus fxxking christ... I didn't buy PS5 to be stuck in time playing Minecraft. Please understand 🙏 😢 I'm not being an asshole but people like you who are stuck in time trigger me, this is the best age of gaming.
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
We don't care about cheap arcade indie games, we want budge, we want more complex games and tech.
Wouldn't you want that big budget stuff quicker rather than having to wait years of your life just to finally get your hands on something you'll beat in a couple of days/weeks?
Games get technically more complex despite easier to use tools and thus take more time to develop.
not all of that technical complexity is needed if older games with a fraction of the technology played extremely well
 

OOGABOOGA

Banned
Wouldn't you want that big budget stuff quicker rather than having to wait years of your life just to finally get your hands on something you'll beat in a couple of days/weeks?
Do you not realise how contradicting that is!! It's just not possible. I saw somewhere that the new unreal engine make things easier, so let's wait and see if things improve or not. I'm fine with waiting tho as long as I get something worth my time.
 

samoilaaa

Member
a big immersive game with good story , good characters , good writing , good gameplay and level design it takes time to make
there are 40-50h games like assassins creed that have no soul , these kind of games can be made in 2 years , 3 max , are these the type of games you want to play ?
can you see the difference between a game like assassins creed and games like witcher3 , red dead redemption 2 ?
 
Last edited:

rofif

Member
Yep, it’s why I don’t wait on games anymore. I even wish they took some shortcuts in the graphics department if it means we get games quicker. As long as it looks good overall with a solid frame rate then I’m good.

I know most won’t agree with that statement. I’m not saying I want ugly games, I’m saying i don’t need to see the tiniest details of facial hair or grass if it means another year of waiting. Somewhere in the middle.

This all comes down to the ridiculous expectations we all set for games these days. Gamers rip apart anything that’s not perfection with screenshots, memes etc.

There’s also an option to add different pricing to easier/quicker developed games. 40$,50$,60$,70$ whatever. It blows my mind I payed the same amount of money for Kirby as red dead 2. And I’m enjoying Kirby a lot. But there’s obvious differences in what both games took to make regardless of what you enjoy more.
But why should they take graphical shortcuts? Tools get better, hardware you make games on is faster, you even just scan assets into the game and motion capture instead of hand animating.
Mass effects and gears of war were top of the line graphically too
 

samoilaaa

Member
Do you not realise how contradicting that is!! It's just not possible. I saw somewhere that the new unreal engine make things easier, so let's wait and see if things improve or not. I'm fine with waiting tho as long as I get something worth my time.
yeah , ue5 might speed up things a little bit
 

lachesis

Member
I also noticed on my steam playthru time... that I'm still the same type of slow player, but recently more and more games require of my time, over 50+ easily.
About a decade ago, a lot of games were below 50 hours, and some were done with 20 some hours with satisfactory experience.

I'd rather see shorter 20 hour type of games at faster release intervals. I think current Resident Evil release cycle has been pretty admirable, especially since RE7. Almost every 1 year to 2 years. Hope they keep it up.
 

Robb

Gold Member
Sure, but I feel there’s also like 100x more games being made today as well. It definitely feels slower waiting for one specific title to launch, but on the other hand there’s an abundance of other titles to play in the meantime.
 
Are you making this thread at this exact forum with members that claim GOW Ragnarok is a dlc because it builds on the previous iteration and they expect every continuation to be made from 0 and it must be a game breaking experience....
 

bitbydeath

Gold Member
The first 3 uncharted games came out in the span of 4 years- 1 in 2007, 2 in 2009, 3 in 2011
This gen is much faster, ND have already released one game this year, have a second game coming out in a few months and further game coming next year.

That’s three games in less than two years as opposed to taking four years on PS3, and they’re not the only studio that’s been ramping up massively.
 
Last edited:

Xeaker

Member
Yes. The last Zelda I played was Skyward Sword in 2011. Like wtf? Never imagined that to happen back then.
Games took less time to make back then AND were better LOOOOOOOL
 

Wildebeest

Member
The mass market decided that they didn't care for grazing on a variety of games with focused design. They wanted to feast on one super hyped mega game which did everything for them which they could play forever and not have to think about anything new.
 

Don Carlo

Member
But you need to look at how much games have transformed over this period as well. It is not a limited game anymore, its beyond human capacity to explore.
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
2 years between mass effect.
2 years between gears of war.
Crazy
Yeah that whole generation was amazing.

3 Mass Effect
3 Gears of War, 4 if you count Judgement.
3 Uncharted

And look at Insomniac’s output:

 

GymWolf

Gold Member
And i'm perfectly ok with this.

Games get bigger and more detailed, it is absurd to expect the opposite.
 
They also take way too long to beat.

30/40 hours for a single-player game is the low-end these days. Just make it a 10 hour experience and finish it in 2/3 years, ask 50/60 dollars and I'm happy.
 
With the advent of photogrammetry (even a damn smartphone can do it) I would have expected that demand for more complex worlds should be balanced to some degree. And since gameplay is barely evolving since PS360 days, those long dev times seem just weird.
We already got crowds (Hitman, Ass Creed), physics (Euphoria, DMM, Havok, PhysX engine), decent AI (FEAR), Portals (Prey, Portal), wall running, rewind feature, photomode, MP with chat, friendlists, achievements, cloud saves... two gens ago.
All we get now is the same but dialed up to eleven. Which is not at all bad, but why practically all projects take so much longer when it is not really breaking new grounds feels weird to me.
 

GenericUser

Member
I honestly wouldn't mind the longer dev time if it actually meant getting better games, but thats not the case (or rarely the case). Stuff like assassins creed takes years of dev time, only to be a shitty, boring open world questfest. But the gamers are the ones to blame, they demand insane levels of details and animation and whatnot, that stuff simply takes time to make.
 

The_Mike

Member
Theres not enough talent/manpower. Studios are too small. Games got more ambitious and studio sizes didnt match that same growth.

As I said, Hollywood and other industries have stolen the talent away from the gaming industry.
Done blame Hollywood.

Blame the people who joined the gaming industry instead of Hollywood.
 
Top Bottom