Why has development cycle grown so much and games are worse then ever?

[Terpsichore]

The concept of fun is no longer considered relevant to the development, so combat, equipment and character building end up being one-dimensional, purely numerical and tiresome. Little fun things such as exploration, "hidden" stuff, easter eggs, etc, are not implemented and the developers might even get scolded for trying to add them because they're considered useless.

Storytelling generally happens without the writers being motivated in any way so they don't employ their souls and just want to get it out of the way. Not to forget the hamfisted political and moral agendas which seems to be becoming the norm. It also appears that convolted and pretentious walls of text are equated to quality writing.

Another thing worth mentioning is the heavy focus on "features" and "quality of life". Games are loaded with a myriad of pointless things which the developers consider good and interesting, yet ultimately they're only there to distract you from how shallow the core game is. QoL generally just leads to dumbing down and makes you feel even more detached from the game. Immersion does not exist and it becomes increasingly harder to keep yourself playing.

Overall though, it feels as if the games are being made with the conviction that you must and will play them, that they're a blessing to us by default and thus do not need to try and keep us interested and immersed. So it's no wonder that those games end up feeling more like chores and less like fun.

 

[DalekFlay]

If you're going by Xbox, yeah. But Playstation 1 and 2 had some weird shit, especially RPG's. That's good enough for me.

JRPGs I'm sure you mean, which are a completely different genre and nothing I really enjoy.

 

[Lurker47]

If you're going by Xbox, yeah. But Playstation 1 and 2 had some weird shit, especially RPG's. That's good enough for me.

JRPGs I'm sure you mean, which are a completely different genre and nothing I really enjoy.

Yeah. But still. Games as a whole weren't too, too bad. At least there was some creativity. Last couple of years have been a pretty rough patch in regards to that.

 

[a Goat]

Big part of Ubisoft's ability to release games yearly is sharing assets between them. So for instance when you have Assassin's Creed 3, a lot of assets and systems went to AC4, Rogue and some probably were even carried over to Unity or Syndicate. Origins happens during the last dynasty because you have lots of Greeks around - Odyssey was already planned by then. They started development of that racing game everyone forgot about around the time Watch Dogs was being developed etc. etc. Everything they do is planned and coordinated, a lot of things are actively reused. This is also why there's 1 year gap in AC between Syndicate and Origins.

As for Anthem it was in dev hell for some time, the actual work was probably done in the last 3 years or so.

 

[Urthor]

Because Clash of Clans and Farmville showed that you don't make the most money by making a good game, you make it by making a game that is frustrating and makes people pay to make the frustration go away

 

[Frozen]

Big part of Ubisoft's ability to release games yearly is sharing assets between them. So for instance when you have Assassin's Creed 3, a lot of assets and systems went to AC4, Rogue and some probably were even carried over to Unity or Syndicate. Origins happens during the last dynasty because you have lots of Greeks around - Odyssey was already planned by then. They started development of that racing game everyone forgot about around the time Watch Dogs was being developed etc. etc. Everything they do is planned and coordinated, a lot of things are actively reused. This is also why there's 1 year gap in AC between Syndicate and Origins.

As for Anthem it was in dev hell for some time, the actual work was probably done in the last 3 years or so.

Its no difference between BioWare and Bethesda. They also reuse assets. Anthem is copy-pasted Andromeda in many parts. BioWare is reusing things as far as Kotor. Bethesda is making 99% same game since 2002.

 

[Frozen]

If you have an engine already its basically modding

somehow, this sounds retarded

Because you are dumb as f. If you have a toolkit and make a story mod with voice acting how is it any different than a pro doing the same and selling it as a DLC?
What's the difference between a mod for a TES game and a TES game? The later is more buggy.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Dev teams full of noobs. veterans are few and far between and mostly take up design and/or management roles.

 

[Tiospo]

We become more and more sophisticated

 

[Bohrain]

Its no difference between BioWare and Bethesda. They also reuse assets. Anthem is copy-pasted Andromeda in many parts. BioWare is reusing things as far as Kotor. Bethesda is making 99% same game since 2002.

EA would hope their recycling would be as smooth as Ubisoft's, but they insist on using Frostbite as their in-house engine and it's absolute garbage for things that aren't Battlefield. Even basic things like save and load features have to be built from scratch, since you obviously don't need that in a multiplayer shooter.

 

[JarlFrank]

Big part of Ubisoft's ability to release games yearly is sharing assets between them. So for instance when you have Assassin's Creed 3, a lot of assets and systems went to AC4, Rogue and some probably were even carried over to Unity or Syndicate. Origins happens during the last dynasty because you have lots of Greeks around - Odyssey was already planned by then. They started development of that racing game everyone forgot about around the time Watch Dogs was being developed etc. etc. Everything they do is planned and coordinated, a lot of things are actively reused. This is also why there's 1 year gap in AC between Syndicate and Origins.

As for Anthem it was in dev hell for some time, the actual work was probably done in the last 3 years or so.

Its no difference between BioWare and Bethesda. They also reuse assets. Anthem is copy-pasted Andromeda in many parts. BioWare is reusing things as far as Kotor. Bethesda is making 99% same game since 2002.

The fuck are you smoking man

Yes Bethesda have been using the same engine since Morrowind, but for every game since then they changed the mechanics to some degree and made entirely new assets.

Morrowind: cool weird fantasy, one of the coolest visual designs in an RPG ever, but from a technical standpoint the graphics look very blocky and primitive; lots of skills, a combat system based on hit-rolls, 16 equipment slots, wiki-style dialogue trees

Oblivion: generic faux-medieval fantasy, technically graphics look a lot better tho, every single asset was newly made, except for the engine itself not a single asset was imported from Morrowind; different equipment system (massively reduced amount of equipment slots), skill system was revamped, some good features of Morrowind were taken away and absolute garbage features like quest compass were added; combat was completely revamped; this one changed a lot, so despite using the same engine they had to do a lot of programming work on it

Fallout 3: often called Oblivion with guns because that's what it is, it still took some work to make it: no assets were imported from Oblivion, because it's a post-apoc setting so they had to make everything from scratch, character models and especially faces are much better than in Oblivion; combat is differen too because it uses FPS mechanics so they had to implement those into the game; stat and skill system are vastly different from Elder Scrolls because it's XP based rather than skill-increase-with-use based

Skyrim: again, completely new assets, since it's high fantasy and FO3's post-apoc assets would feel out of place in it; everything has again been visually updated from the last game so except maybe for a handful of textures, all the assets you see in Skyrim were newly made rather than recycled from previous games; while it plays similar enough to Oblivion, again changes have been made to the skill system, like the addition of perks, that required some programming work to implement properly

Fallout 4: I haven't played this one yet but one look at a gameplay video tells you that they used completely new assets again since their visual fidelity is far above Fallout 3; even if the enemy models are technically the same - like Deathclaws still looking like Deathclaws - updating a model isn't just a matter of adding a few touches, you have to create a new mesh and new texture and new animations to make it look up to par with all the new assets that are added; also I heard that the shooting feels better than in FO3 so some design and programming work went into optimizing the FPS gameplay

Yes, the games all play rather similarly but the assets are obviously not the same, which becomes apparent with a single glance at a screenshot. They also changed the gameplay systems to some degree between each game.

Bethesda may be re-using their engine in every game, but they're not re-using assets.

 

[Frozen]

When it looks the same, when it plays the same and it uses the same engine its a same fucking game. They made some new skins over it but its irrelevant minor shit.

How many Bethestards idiots are here, this is common knowledge, the joke is on you if you don't get it by now lol

You are playing the same shitty game for 20y LOLz

let it sink in:

Morrowind= Fallout 3=Oblivion=Skyrim=Fallout 4= whatever next hike crap

 

[DalekFlay]

Bethesda games at their core are similar, but you could say that of any genre. At its core Doom is the same as Hexen is the same as Wolfenstein but they're still different, and fans enjoy them all. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim are the same genre but within that genre have plenty of significant differences. This is different from Assassin's Creed, where half of them are literally so similar to another one that it's off-putting.

 

[Frozen]

BS
Its not genre, its the same game-the same derpines, the same bugs, the same shitty voice acting, the same "im a prisoner in a dungeon" or "you start in a random vault"beginning, the same mechanics, the same everything.
At least before there was some graphic improvement but Fallout 4 looks like shit, like a game from 2012 at best.

 

[Neanderthal]

I've re-used your mums assets plenty of times, always been enjoyable.

 

[Frozen]

"Oh look, its some irrelevant shitty place in Boston that really exists, how cool!"

Said no one ever beside Bethestards.

 

[DalekFlay]

BS
Its not genre, its the same game-the same derpines, the same bugs, the same shitty voice acting, the same "im a prisoner in a dungeon" or "you start in a random vault"beginning, the same mechanics, the same everything.
At least before there was some graphic improvement but Fallout 4 looks like shit, like a game from 2012 at best.

They're the same genre, the same series and the same engine, yes. No one denies that. All the Gothic and Risen games share similar things as well, and all the old Infinity Engine games or whatever else. This is extremely common. It's not the same as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry literally using the same assets over and over, despite your try-hard screaming.

 

[Frozen]

They're the same genre, the same series and the same engine, yes. No one denies that. All the Gothic and Risen games share similar things as well, and all the old Infinity Engine games or whatever else. This is extremely common. It's not the same as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry literally using the same assets over and over, despite your try-hard screaming.

It is the same in all cases, they all reuse assets. Look at the way people move in a BioWare game, its same animations since Kotor. Environment grids are also the same, if you play enough Bio games you kind of know how the corridor is constructed etc. Same with Bethesda, so many things are reused. You are the one defending this BS PR these companies are putting like they have "heavily moded" "new versions" of engines etc. lol Things they say to fake it that they are actually doing some real work that is not mostly copy-paste.

 

[Darkzone]

Why RPGs are getting worse and worse despite higher budget and etc?
Short answer: GCD!

 

[DalekFlay]

It is the same in all cases, they all reuse assets. Look at the way people move in a BioWare game, its same animations since Kotor. Environment grids are also the same, if you play enough Bio games you kind of know how the corridor is constructed etc. Same with Bethesda, so many things are reused. You are the one defending this BS PR these companies are putting like they have "heavily moded" "new versions" of engines etc. lol Things they say to fake it that they are actually doing some real work that is not mostly copy-paste.

I agree with animations, engine, etc... it's just not what we're fucking talking about, despite you insisting otherwise.

 

[Delterius]

If you have an engine already its basically modding

somehow, this sounds retarded

Because you are dumb as f. If you have a toolkit and make a story mod with voice acting how is it any different than a pro doing the same and selling it as a DLC?
What's the difference between a mod for a TES game and a TES game? The later is more buggy.

somehow, this sounds even worse

 

[JarlFrank]

They're the same genre, the same series and the same engine, yes. No one denies that. All the Gothic and Risen games share similar things as well, and all the old Infinity Engine games or whatever else. This is extremely common. It's not the same as Assassin's Creed and Far Cry literally using the same assets over and over, despite your try-hard screaming.

It is the same in all cases, they all reuse assets. Look at the way people move in a BioWare game, its same animations since Kotor. Environment grids are also the same, if you play enough Bio games you kind of know how the corridor is constructed etc. Same with Bethesda, so many things are reused. You are the one defending this BS PR these companies are putting like they have "heavily moded" "new versions" of engines etc. lol Things they say to fake it that they are actually doing some real work that is not mostly copy-paste.

Do you even know the meaning of the word "asset" or are you being a retard on purpose?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

It may also be organizational thing. My experience with working in big systems is that the higher you go up the food chain less real work is done by those higher people. Most actual work is done by people at the bottom. You don't need more then 2-3 (if even so) people with just executive power of delegating priorities and those people should be just the one at the very top-they make decisions what to do and how and all others just do it. If you have boss and boss of a boss and boss of a boss of a boss of a boss decision making is so diluted that nothing can be done in efficient way.


​

You assume that the whole reason for the structure existence isn't creation of more executive positions. That's wrong.

 

[J1M]

I heard anthem was in pre-production for like 3-4 years and was in development for like 6-8 months.

1) This idea is a lie. Even when it comes from Bioware.
2) Continuing to exaggerate the numbers each time you repeat the lie is peculiar.
3) Bioware uses this lie every time they have a flop.

 

[Riddler]

I heard anthem was in pre-production for like 3-4 years and was in development for like 6-8 months.

1) This idea is a lie. Even when it comes from Bioware.
2) Continuing to exaggerate the numbers each time you repeat the lie is peculiar.
3) Bioware uses this lie every time they have a flop.

Anthem is a non-central example of ballooning development time/cost anyway. Most likely Anthems long development time is due to the competent employees and management jumping ship and them developing a game in a genre they neither have any experience of nor any interest in.

BioWare is imploding, it's not an example of the general case of ballooning development costs.