Information Writing by October, Scripting by April: Brian Fargo Comments on Deadlines

[Crooked Bee]

Tags: Brian Fargo; InXile Entertainment; Wasteland 2

Speaking to the Codex today, Brian Fargo has elaborated on some of the deadlines he currently has in mind for the development of Wasteland 2. As things stand, InXile plans on having most of the writing and design done by October this year and most of the scripting and levels finished by April 2013, "thus leaving another 6 months for iteration and play test":

"The best production process is pretty fluid", Brian Fargo told us via email, "so I hate to commit to exactly how things roll out but I can tell you that 90% of the writing/design will happen by October. Scripting will start in about a month from now on the levels that are done. I plan to have all levels in and scripted by April thus leaving another 6 months for iteration and play test. The only reason we have the ability to have an accelerated production schedule is that the tools and user generated assets offer us a huge head start over the old ways of doing things. I would also add that in game cinematics can take up to 50% of our time to implement and not having to do that is also a huge savings. In addition, I am not having to make milestones to prove we are making progress which shaves another 25%. But I have been offered a fantastic and unique opportunity to make something special with Wasteland so I will not let the game go [if] it isn't ready and I will have lots of beta testers to make sure that doesn't happen."

"There will always be tons of speculation," Fargo added, "but we just need to do the work and prove ourselves." Addressing the occasional concerns about the 18-month development cycle, he acknowledged that "there will always be doubters which I understand - the proof is in the pudding so to speak."​

He also commented on the issues some people had with the look of the early screenshot. "[W]e have much more to do," Fargo explained, "so they should not get too wound up about early screens. I put it out at the request of the backers so we could listen to the input. Adjusting palettes takes about 1 minute and things do look more toy like without the effects. It will all be good. This new way of development is a learning process for us all."

We thank Brian Fargo for his comments.

 

[Zed]

He didn't mention game show stuff, which I thought would attribute more to the development time. Unless, of course, those would be part of the milestones he mention. He did put some weight on those Unity assets though - interesting.

Thanks for contacting him Bee, you da bomb. And thanks Fargo.

 

[Untermensch]

I must say that I doubt that they can make a complex rpg in such a short time, but, compared to Fargo, what the fuck do I know about game development.
I do have confidence in Inxile.

 

[mindx2]

 

[Ethan Duvall]

Someone summon Vault Dweller to comment that!

 

[Vault Dweller]

What's there to comment on?

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Could Crooked Bee please post the original email sent to Fargo?

 

[mindx2]

What's there to comment on?

What do you think of this timeline? Does it address some of your concerns? Is it still too ambitious? Does the "Milestones" shaving off 25% seem like a lot? Do you think these "tools and user generated assets" offer them the huge benefit he seems to think? These are some of the things I would really like to hear your thoughts on. You have some experience, I don't.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I can't say anything about the timeline because I have no idea what's planned for the game (in terms of writing and scripting). My concern isn't with anything specific and isn't with Fargo/Wasteland 2, but with a simple fact that I've never seen a full-scale RPG taking less than 3 years. Maybe he can pull it off and maybe he can't, but asking questions about it right now is pointless as he can only assure people that he's on schedule and mention a distant possibility of a delay, just in case. Hope nobody expected him to say "you know what, you're right, come to think about it, we do need 3 years".

For the record, I don't buy "all RPGs take 1.5 years but them milestones, tools, and assets turn it in 3 years". Remind me of:

- But movies cost millions of dollars to make.
- That's after gross net deduction profit percentage deferment ten percent of the nut. Cash, every movie cost $2,184.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Another comment from Brian, which I've edited into the OP:

I would also add that in game cinematics can take up to 50% of our time to implement and not having to do that is also a huge savings.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Could Crooked Bee please post the original email sent to Fargo?

Er, no, why should I? In any case, if you're so curious, I did link that heated 17-page screenshot discussion thread to him.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Another comment from Brian, which I've edited in the OP:

I would also add that in game cinematics can take up to 50% of our time to implement and not having to do that is also a huge savings.

Sounds reasonable. Swen Vincke confirms:

14) I'm just asking to understand the relations, in a game like Divinity 2 how much effort or resources go into voiceovers, cutscenes (the cinematic aspects of the game) in comparison to the rest of the gameplay?

On a core team of about 40 guys not counting the outsourcing (which brought the total at times over 100), we on average had only 7 guys busy with the actual gameplay, so that gives you an idea of how much effort the production values take. Too much if you ask me, but that's the industry we're in.

That sounds like far more than 50% of the effort goes into cinematics and that's in a game that's nowhere near as cinematic as BioWare or CDP games, so I guess they can save a fair chunk of time by scrapping the cinematics.

 

[Davaris]

That sounds like far more than 50% of the effort goeas into cinematics and that's in a game that's nowhere near as cinematic as BioWare or CDP games, so I guess they can save a fair chunk of time by scrapping the cinematics.

That's just make busy work, while they wait 3 years for the programmers to finish the engines and scripts. Shhh! Don't tell the boss.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Am I bad person for enjoying the occasional and well placed cutscene?

 

[Grotesque]

Am I bad person for enjoying the occasional and well placed cutscene?

no

 

[laclongquan]

Am i a bad gamer for enjoying a gameplay so much I am willing to forgo all the cutscene in exchane for 50% shorter development time?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Another comment from Brian, which I've edited in the OP:

I would also add that in game cinematics can take up to 50% of our time to implement and not having to do that is also a huge savings.

Sounds reasonable. Swen Vincke confirms:

14) I'm just asking to understand the relations, in a game like Divinity 2 how much effort or resources go into voiceovers, cutscenes (the cinematic aspects of the game) in comparison to the rest of the gameplay?

On a core team of about 40 guys not counting the outsourcing (which brought the total at times over 100), we on average had only 7 guys busy with the actual gameplay, so that gives you an idea of how much effort the production values take. Too much if you ask me, but that's the industry we're in.

That sounds like far more than 50% of the effort goes into cinematics and that's in a game that's nowhere near as cinematic as BioWare or CDP games, so I guess they can save a fair chunk of time by scrapping the cinematics.

They can save a chunk of money (which is why Fargo *can* make a great game with only 3 mil budget), but not time.

Here is what Vincke says - they had 40-100 people working on the game, but only 7 worked on gameplay. Throwing all 40-100 on gameplay would only make a mess and wouldn't speed things up. It's not like the same group of people first does the engine, then the tools, then the scripting, then design, then writing, etc. It's done simultaneously (few exceptions apply). That's why dropping or outsourcing any of those things will only affect the budget.

 

[Infinitron]

Please do not bait the Dweller.

 

[Davaris]

Alternate alternate theory: Alan Pavlish really is that good. And considering he's programmed like 400 games and has a Potato last name it's quite possible. A good programmer is ten times better than a mediocre one, a hundred times more than a crap one.

Programmers like that are rare, but I've seen a few in the wild. If Pavlish is as good as the guys I've seen, Brian wouldn't need much more.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

They can save a chunk of money (which is why Fargo *can* make a great game with only 3 mil budget), but not time.

Here is what Vincke says - they had 40-100 people working on the game, but only 7 worked on gameplay. Throwing all 40-100 on gameplay would only make a mess and wouldn't speed things up. It's not like the same group of people first does the engine, then the tools, then the scripting, then design, then writing, etc. It's done simultaneously (few exceptions apply). That's why dropping or outsourcing any of those things will only affect the budget.

Of course scrapping the cinematics saves first and foremost lots of money. However, InXile has more than 7 employees, and since all of them don't do the cinematics stuff I assume they're working on the gameplay/writing instead, so that part should go faster than it would go when >70% of your staff has to take care about the production values.

 

[Vault Dweller]

ToEE used the Arcanum engine (Steam).

 

[almondblight]

Wait...cinematics is 50% of the time, and having to show milestones is 25%? If we take out voice overs, publisher meetings/meddling, trade shows, etc., what are we left with, games only really need about 10% of the time to be made?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pretty much. You can put one together in a day or two. A week if you really want to impress people.

 

[Ethan Duvall]

Whats wrong Vault Dweller? Fargo's team could make AoD in less than 6 months.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wouldn't be surprised.