ITT, DU does not understand the difference between game development 15 years ago versus now.
Yeah because like now, it's easier because you can google for textures of wooden boxes!
"Now think twice before you tell me, that making games is more complicated today."
So are you saying that games
really are more complicated to make today - that they do need more staff? Because that's counter to a major section of his article.
Try to make an Assassins Creed with a team of 30 people. Sure, despite Internet, Texture-DVDs, ZBrush and all that cool stuff, modern games are still more time consuming and complicated to make than oldtimers.
So like I said, a major part of his article is complete bullshit.
But it's easier 'cause I can like find textures and stuff on teh internets!
Do I think a team of 400 is necessary for something like Assassins Creed 2? No, no way. Too much inefficiency and redundance. Do I think you can accomplish the same shit with 30 people? No, no way either.
Yes, and how many of those 400 are this supposed "army" that modern games need these days, according to our esteemed article writer?
From the looks at Moby Games, the vast majority are in fact level designers (because let's face it, making a fully 3d level with the detail required in a modern game is much more time consuming than connecting some vertices together in the Doom editor) and artists (because again, making those highly detailed fully 3d models is a little more time consuming than drawing Pinky).
As for the 400, I'm not certain if that's even including the voice-over artists (which, to be honest, given the alternative is using the same five recycled voices ala Oblivion, is probably a good thing).
So a game like Mount & Blade might be great, but the level design is shit. And the models aren't that crash-hot. They certainly don't flip-out like the protaganist in AC2 does. And given Bethesda can't animate for shit, I'd say model animation seems to be a highly specialised talent in-and-of-itself these days. Long gone are the days of the artist also being the animation guy...
Unless it's that mythical "special forces" guy these guys can't seem to afford to hire.
Yeah and because every popamole corridor shooter had 150 people working on it.
Every $100 mln popamole corridor shooter has 150 people and that's the whole point.
150 people.
4 year development time-frame.
Average salary of $50,000 USD each.
= $30,000,000 in salaries.
Throw in office space and equipment and you're still barely scraping $40 million. That's still a AAA game for a lot cheaper than $100 million.
Guess where most of the money goes?
Marketing.
His point: Games are actually easier to make today, and therefore you can do a lot more with less people.
Exactly. That's the whole point man.
I think you missed the point actually. He was making a comparison to
the days of yore, when you had "15 guys in the basement surrounded by pizza".
Now either games are easier to make today than that (which given his flippant texture remark, seems to be what he's saying) - in which case why has he got 40+ people doing the work of 5 - or they're not, in which case why is half the article irrelevant comparisons to "the games of yore" where one person literally did everything? Is he really saying he expects to be doing everything on this project? And if not,
why not? As not doing so would be counter to his article.
Comparing games today to the games of yore is bullshit. Despite all those fancy tools (and abundant textures to be found on google), games did in fact get more time consuming to make. You therefore do need more people.
He even makes bullshit examples like this:
Harry Potter is huge and a very expensive project, but it was directed by one director, written by one screenwriter and based on a book written by one writer. Not a department of fifty people, directed by a board of executives, sitting behind the screenwriter and telling him what to do.
Harry Potter (and the Deathly Hallows Part 2) had:
9 Producers.
13 people on "Art Direction".
Something like 100+ people in make-up.
5 under "production management".
22 Second Unit Directors or Assistant Directors.
Another 60 odd people in the Art Department (probably the reason why they needed all that Art Direction).
50+ for sound.
20 for special effects.
And what looks like 500 names for visual effects.
Not to mention the actors, stuntmen and everyone else.
We're talking something like 2,000+ people in total. And this is the comparison he uses.
You really think it was all done with just one "Director"? Sure, there was one guy who was "THE" Director but all those people had directors and others they reported to. As for there not being a "board of executives sitting behind everyone", what does he think all those producers did (one of which incidentally, was JK Rowling)?