• 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....

Roufianos

Member
Cut the pointlessly large open worlds, bloated game lengths, awful side quests and this ridiculous obsession with fidelity and animation. I'd trade all of that for a more regular release schedule.

This industry needs to stop operating under the assumption that bigger = better.

Give us more Miles Morales sized games.
 
Last edited:

SkylineRKR

Member
We apparently want better graphics. Games are becoming more and more complex with lots of fidelity going on and no one settles with a worse looking TLOU 3 or Witcher 4.

Its kinda getting out of hand. What you typically see is that a developer likely releases one game per console generation. CDPR did Witcher 3 early in the gen, and then released Cyberpunk when the next-gen consoles were already out. Rockstar sort of only released RDR2, and remastered GTA V. To keep it sustainable they push DLC, MTX etc. This same Rockstar released GTA 3, VC, SA, Bully, Manhunt, Midnight Club on PS2. And probably more. Naughty Dog still doesn't have a PS5 game, while the TLOU remaster is done by Bend. I think we'll see 2 ND games tops. Sucker Punch only did Infamous 3 and Ghost of Tsushima (and DLC).

But we want this right? We're crying if a console can't display native 4k/60, can't do RTX at 60fps and doesn't look amazing. At the same time we want games to be released at an unrealistic pace. Because you can't compare classic FFVII or Vice City with todays games. Those games are really small, very limited in gameplay. They're still good as they're classics, but you don't want the next Rockstar or SE console game to look like it.

Cut the pointlessly large open worlds, bloated game lengths, awful side quests and this ridiculous obsession with fidelity and animation. I'd trade all of that for a more regular release schedule.

This industry needs to stop operating under the assumption that bigger = better.

Give us more Miles Morales sized games.

Yeah I agree. I am playing MM right now because of Plus Premium. I like it better than the original, based on the first few hours. The pacing is just far better. There is no boring puzzles or MJ sections either. OG Spiderman was good but absolutely bloated. MM seems its that game with all the fat being trimmed.

There was criticism about Ghostwire, I didn't try it yet but if one thing sounded appealing to me it was the length and scope of the game.
 
Last edited:

A2una1

Neo Member
Cut the pointlessly large open worlds, bloated game lengths, awful side quests and this ridiculous obsession with fidelity and animation. I'd trade all of that for a more regular release schedule.

This industry needs to stop operating under the assumption that bigger = better.

Give us more Miles Morales sized games.

But releasing on a yearly basis can also lead to fatigue...look at assassins creed.... can't stand them anymore although they are good games each on their own....
 

Stuart360

Member
Cut the pointlessly large open worlds, bloated game lengths, awful side quests and this ridiculous obsession with fidelity and animation. I'd trade all of that for a more regular release schedule.

This industry needs to stop operating under the assumption that bigger = better.

Give us more Miles Morales sized games.
Its about percieved 'value for money'. You're not going to get many AAA 6 hour campaign games that take 5 years to make, studios would be scared about them flopping, and thats why we get these huge 50+ hour games.
 

killatopak

Member
Counterpoint.

A lot more games get released nowadays.

Sequels or games released by the same studio may take longer but there are more studios and variety in general.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
We’re partly to blame with our insatiable appetite for more shiny effects and power.

I’m all for longer console generations, and chilling out on this push for bigger and more detailed worlds. I’m happy with how things are, and don’t need more.

Even the largest publishers are risk averse, and can’t pump out as many titles as they used to. And when they do they’re usually smaller in scale and require road maps and patches.

I’d love to just hit the pause button on the hardware side of things.
 

Shut0wen

Member
Probably because most developers think every game needs to be a sandbox with 100s of hours worth of gameplay, not only that but 9 times out of 10 a game studio is working on 2 games at the same time with 1 being a priority compared to another, thing i hate about games development especially in triple A is attention to detail its nice but at the end of the day its nice but its not essential, abd fromsoftware proves this, a studio which has recently prioritized gameplay over everything else, yeah graphics why there shit but there art style abd gameplay is way then enough to keep people entertained now theres rumours that aemoured core is pretty much finished, if it releases next year then fromsoftware has released 4 games in the space of 5 years, probably made shitload more money then the makers of god of war, even control an amazing gane made on budget abd was made in less then 2 years, developers need to go back to budget games in order to release more titles, budget titles can be amazing if theres a talent team behind them
 

VN1X

Member
Yes I wish all games fit into my schedule and reduce themselves to basic platformers or do away with intricate systems that take too long to develop!!

Gawd, screw all these devs for trying to deliver a quality product and taking so long in the process!! Ugh!!
 

Ulysses 31

Member
I feel they could get away with making AAA PS360 games running at 60 fps with modern quality textures and lighting tech.

Look how well Wii(U) games can look with just upscaled resolution and some AA.
 

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
The editor's note in the latest Game Informer magazine agrees. He discusses Rockstar as an example. Compares how many games they made on the PS2 compared to now, which is maybe one per generation. Many studios take well over 5 years to make a single game and it will only get worse. How long before it takes 10 years to make a damn game? It really is crazy.

Rockstar released four massive games between 2008 and 2018. That. . .really isn't them sitting on the laurels. Who knows how far along in development GTAVI is, but I imagine it'll take a few more years given the amount of post-launch support they've had for moneymaker GTAV and critical darling RDR2.

Then you have the folks moaning about TES6 taking so long and "What is BETHESDA doing!" when between 2002 and 2011 they also released four games, and then another massive one four years after (as well as two other games not primarily developed by their main development team).

SSMS will also have taken four years between GoW and GoW:R. ND has similar tracking times. About the only company we're I've sat back and though "What the hell are they doing!" is CDPR with CP77 and that is ONLY because they announced that game absurdly early despite their release schedule tracking exactly the same as these other developers (including CP77 releasing a few years after TW3).

. . . long and short, I'm not really seeing the woeful development time of the AAA game space (how that groups definition became a point of contention in this thread I'll never know). Maybe if we're looking at it on a power franchise basis, but even then that's usually because there's other stuff being worked on.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Yes I wish all games fit into my schedule and reduce themselves to basic platformers or do away with intricate systems that take too long to develop!!

Gawd, screw all these devs for trying to deliver a quality product and taking so long in the process!! Ugh!!
they were able to deliver a quality product in less than half the time a decade and a half ago
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Really couldn’t give less of a shit about micro hair follicles on Cassie Drake’s top lip etc.

I’d be happy for ND to put out a new game in 3 years that looks the same as their PS4 work but comes out at 1440p 60fps instead of 1080p 30fps.

These 6 year cycles whilst these studios spend so much time and resources on relatively minor lighting upgrades etc, it’s just stupid as fuck.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Really couldn’t give less of a shit about micro hair follicles on Cassie Drake’s top lip etc.
holy shit, this is what i mean by "corners that need to be cut"
I'm not saying that we should go back to PS2 graphics, i'm saying we need to cut out extra detail that hardly anyone will ever notice during gameplay. Does aloy really need to have peach fuzz when most people won't even see her face during gameplay? There still should be a good amount of detail, just not in the shit no one will notice. That's what 7th gen devs did, put detail into the areas where it matter. The environments, the boss fights, the lighting, all of that took priority over hyper realistic character models
 

tassletine

Member
It's a mess. Overdeveloped and when they arrive usually buggy as hell.
There's something seriously wrong with a lot of game companies as they're floundering in the weeds most of the time.
Game development is excruciatingly hard though and a constant balance of checks and rechecks. It's not that surprising.

However, I do blame them as it's pure hubris. Not every game needs to be 30 hours+. If they kept games shorter they would probably be as profitable and could get more out in the timeframe.

A fairly short main game that then gets added to via DLC is my preference. Don't bore me before I've finished and I'll happily buy more.
The Resident Evil games are good in this dept. Capcom know what they are doing.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Like, i'll admit that i don't like very many sony exclusives, but the one developer in the industry that gets this right frankly is Insomniac
their games are smaller scale, yet still look very good. They know what the scope of their games should be, and they're hyper efficient to the point where they can develop AAA experiences in less than 3 years. Sunset Overdrive in 2014, Ratchet remake was in 2016, spiderman was in 2018, miles morales in 2020, and Spiderman 2 is likely coming in 2023. They deliver smaller scope yet still AAA quality experiences in a couple of years- their pipeline is fucking unmatched. They were even like this from the beginning- Spyro 1 in 1998, spyro 2 in 1999, spyro 3 in 2000, ratchet 1 in 2002, ratchet 2 in 2003, ratchet 3 in 2004, ratchet deadlocked in 05. They were pumping out 1 game every single fucking year and every single one of them was a competently made AAA (for the time) experience. If every developer in the industry could be more like them i wouldn't be complaining
 
Last edited:

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
The answer is right in front of you…..



 
Last edited:

*Nightwing

Member


Want great impressive AAA titles turned around every year? It’s possible, but gonna probably cost $200 per game to convince the studios to staff up enough to produce games quicker and retain their profit levels


… until then long live retro and indie gaming!
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
Is it really? One could argue that 90% of that game is padding.

I love both games, but in OoT you are doing meaningful things almost all the time, while in BOTW it's the exact opposite.
Even then, BOTW2 from trailers doesn't look to be a massive departure from BOTW gameplay, music or aesthetic wise
People make a lot of jokes about Ragnarok being DLC, i think that's gonna apply more to BOTW2 than Ragnarok
It looks like a sequel yes, but it doesn't look like a "6 years in development" sequel.
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

Gold Member
Even then, BOTW2 from trailers doesn't look to be a massive departure from BOTW gameplay, music or aesthetic wise
People make a lot of jokes about Ragnarok being DLC, i think that's gonna apply more to BOTW2 than Ragnarok
I agree. And honestly, after Elden Ring I really hope they are taking their time on adding some actual content like proper dungeons and such. BOTW was very cool but once the novelty wears off you realize it's quite barebones in that department.

And for me Ragnarok looks like it's own game, don't get the "DLC" comments aside from the graphical stuff.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
As for some of chatting about extra time needed for better visuals because it takes longer now, I agree with that to an extent.

I think everyone wants better visuals. You dont buy better consoles or gpus for the same or worse visuals.

But the problem is it sure seems like they spend a lot of time and money on shit you'll barely notice, or it gimps the frame rate in half (RT). I can live with extra resources needed for awesome caves, buildings and stuff always on screen.

I dont need system power and money used on hair strands you can barely even notice unless it's an upclose shot, bloomy RT effects, meticulous car details nobody sees except in 10x zoomed in replay or photo mode and shit like that. It makes zero sense resources get put into this when something in your face like buildings, crowds, NPC characters can look like shit. Or the game is buggy as they gimped on budget for QA and coding.

Focus on the important stuff.

As for you guys talking open world filler or streamlined games with tight production values at reasonable time (Insomniac), I agree that too much filler is bad for many people (I like it sometimes as I'll play Fallout or Skyrim to death till I get burnt out of it), BUT you know how business goes. Bigger is always a marketing bullet point. Not too often you see a company promote their latest product is "smaller, but better".
 
Last edited:

John Wick

Member
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
No we don't need to cut corners. When corners are cut we get shit like Cyberpunk at release. A buggy mess. What we need is assholes to engage their brains first and use common sense that the bigger the games get the longer it will take.
 
I agree. The only reason that makes sense is that the game was finished some time ago and they are just holding it for Nintendo's new hardware. No way it took the devs more than a few years to have it ready. Zelda is a system seller. Can literally carry the Switch 2's first year by itself.
You’re right. I’d buy the next console for that game on day one, no questions asked.
 
Top Bottom