student said:
greenmedic88 said:
Exblackman said:
greenmedic88 said:
Exblackman said:
greenmedic88 said:
I don't see how HVS can crank out two quality titles on a relatively short development pipeline and still expect them to remain "quality" titles.
I was under the impression that HVS was a smaller studio.
Currently, I'd have to say that PR seems to be the one of their greatest strengths and focuses as a company, which is not a good thing IMO.
More work on game design and a stronger art department would do volumes for their future products.
Best advice: wait until after you've played the game this time before you start hyping it. |
They over a 100 hundred employees they are not that small.... thier actually bigger then some of nintendos development teams...
|
Ask yourself how long it takes the typical Nintendo development team to produce one of their first rate efforts.
See the problem?
|
There a couple problem with that statements first off thier reusing and engne that alreadys works instead making totally new one which saves much development .Building an engine is on of the most time consuming in devlopment with that out of the way you only need 1/1/2 to two years to make a game. Example Mario Galaxy 2 which took two years instead the 4+ that the original did.
|
HVS is supposedly working on two games in tandem. If not and the production pipelines for both are actually staggered, meaning they're projecting their releases for the next 3-4 years, then sure, it's doable.
It still makes more sense for a studio, 100 person staff or not, (which doesn't give us the breakdown on how many artists they have to create all the in game resources, which are independent from the game engine development and still happens to be over 60% of the work load in a high quality graphic based title) to focus on one preject at a time rather than to split up their creative resources into teams working on entirely separate projects.
Maybe they can do it. Naughty Dog did. Insomniac repeatedly does top tier work on short production pipelines as well. But I can't put HVS in the same category on the limited strengths of The Conduit. And certainly not if they're planning on cranking out a full game every year.
|
The problem with your philosophy of one game at a time is that for a studio like this, if that game doesn't succeed and sell well, they're basically SOL and will go bankrupt. A studio like this needs to have a few games prepared so if one falls off th rocker, they can get the next out reasonably soon to cover tehmselves.
|
The shotgun approach of throwing out as many titles in as little time as possible and hoping at least one hits is a problematic strategy as well. It has nothing to do with beliefs or "philosophy."
Either you have a solid title on your hands during development due to the thought, effort and man hours that went into it that is well-received, or you don't. Having more titles that aren't well received as well does not help the situation either way.
If HVS doesn't have a hit with their next release, then they run the risk of being seen as just another developer for the Wii that is making somewhat uninspired games that end up selling appropriately. Game three would have to be exceptional to buck that stigma.
Without being privvy to HVS' balance sheets, one may as well assume they have enough VC/investment dollars to supplement whatever revenue generated by Conduit sales to stay in business. Since they appear to be expanding rather than laying staff off, it's a safe assumption which means there shouldn't be any rush to throw out as many titles in as little time possible.
