makingmusic476 said:
Squilliam said:
Every game has a limited scope for development whether it is 200 people over 5 years or 50 people over two years. How they assign their resources dictates on what features get cut, which features get implemented and how many new gameplay mechanics they bring on board, etc. It is possible that they put too much on their plate and therefore wasted man hours, it is possible they didn't get a working alpha early enough to test their multiplayer etc. Given the level of resources they had available to them what comes out the other end relates almost entirely to their goals and direction as well as straight up project management. What you see out the other end in their game is the result of the choices they made and how well they pulled it off.
P.S. The number of developers who worked on a project is entirely different to the number of developer years on average spent over the number of developers who worked on the project. Just because they had 450 at one point or different points doesn't mean they even had as much development resources as GG had with KZ3 if they had a more stable, large team.
|
Obviously, we don't know all the details about the development of each game, but 450 is still a significant figure, almost tripling the development team of Killzone 2 at its peak.
And I'd like some examples to back up this claim:
"Other developers have been able to release bigger/better games in 24 months it is just a question of where they prioritise their time."
:P
|
Its not 450 full time developers, all it means is that 450 people worked on the game. Theres a significant difference between the two. Its the EA/Ubisoft studio model, they aren't all attached to the one studio they tend to get moved around to where they are needed.
As for the quote it depends on their priorities, they could have kept the assets the same and spent the programming time on other things. It really depends on what they prioritise and whether you appreciate the result of their efforts.
