So I have a PS3...have Uncharted and MGS4...and the saw a HD video of GOW2

[dbot]

twesterm said:

dbot said:

twesterm said:

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

 

I would rather figure it with facts.  Do you have any?

 

I'm not the one who posted it first so I really don't care.  As I said, I use common sense to figure it out so no need to look for the articles. 

Both games have reasonbly large teams but one game took more time than the others to finish.  Both games are very high on quality, quality takes time and money.  Longer time spent means more money spent.

What's the Tommy Boy quote?

I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it.

 

I don't really want to go back and forth on this issue with you.  I understand that you feel that the total development costs of Gears 1 and Gears 2 were less than MGS4 OR Killzone 2 because the length of time each game has been in development. But you can't really use that as a yardstick without an understanding of the burn rate for each team per game.  A "common sense" example would be LBP.  Its development team maxed out at 30 people, and the game took 2 years to complete.  Do you think LBP cost as much as Gears of War 2 since they both took 2 years to complete.

The reason I asked for a link was it the original statement was presented as fact, when in reality it was an opinion.