raycevick
patreon
The Long Development Cycle
🕑 Added 2021-01-15 14:01:02 +0000 UTC
Mass Effect Andromeda started out in life akin to one of the titles most infamously ravaged at launch, No Man's Sky. It would feature procedurally generated planets, a full galaxy to explore, and full planet exploration. This game was in development for approximately 2-3 years until finally the project's creative director abandoned the project.
The game marketed to everybody in trailers, gameplay, and reviews, was made in the period after those initial years.
Resident Evil 4 was first shown as a traditional tank-controlled fixed camera horror game where Leon Kennedy would hallucinate objects and enemies in a room. However, the game's core gameplay premise was discovered to be technically infeasible on the Gamecube's limited technology, forcing a complete re-design.
The game marketed to everybody in trailers, gameplay, and reviews, was made in the period after those initial years.
Cyberpunk 2077 was announced publicly in 2013 to attract investors and an audience where it was rebooted several times and staffed with only a minimal team until Witcher 3 and its expansions wrapped everything up, leaving three and a half years of production remaining on the table. For reference, slightly longer than a modern Call of Duty development cycle.
The game marketed to everybody in trailers, gameplay, and reviews, was made in the period after those initial years.
This article isn't about Cyberpunk, but it's about a topic that Cyberpunk has very much highlighted, the 5+ year long development cycle. It's common to hear people ask "how could this be the result after seven years of development?"
This question is normal, it was asked with Duke Nukem Forever, Mass Effect Andromeda, No Mans Sky, and many more. What I fear however is that it implies these games were made in a linear structure from pre-production, to full development, polish, and release. The truth is, not only did Cyberpunk 2077 not follow this structure...
No Triple A game in history has, or at least any that've been in development for longer than 5+ years.
Unlike Film (where scripts end up in development hell due to companies endlessly reworking scripts into something that can be sold), many large games don't have a set technical process. Obviously, there's exceptions to this with things like yearly sports games, but one of the most common criticisms those games receive is how little they advance, and that's because their pre-production stage is virtually non-existent. It's much faster to make a game when you're not notably advancing any gameplay mechanics, technologies, or design framework.
When you've shot a scene for a movie, you've shot it. It needs to be spliced in the edit, spruced up with color grading, or CGI effects, but something resembling the finished product is already completed. It's why Films can be made so quickly.
Games take the time they do because those developers don't have one completed portion of the game until months before its in players hands, and if those pieces don't align, the only way to possibly resolve them, is to take even more time.
Really, the criticism of games like Cyberpunk and the others like it shouldn't be "X years for this?" Half Life 2 was closed down, rebooted, and took as long as those games, and its considered to be one of the greatest.
What we really need is more effective communication in the industry. For companies to inform consumers when projects are rebooting, scrapped, or making sweeping changes. For websites to not be doom and gloom nor reassurance of a games state, but merely to give valuable information to readers.
Nintendo did this with Metroid Prime 4.
The game was teased at E3 many years ago but went radio silent, that is, until Nintendo themselves released a public statement, informing consumers and the press that the game was rebooted in development, hence the lack of any further marketing.
This should be normal, but it never will be, because information only travels when its something people want to hear.
I doubt Cyberpunk's hype would've been the same had it publicly announced their team scrapping and rebooting the project 3+ times over the years, even though, for a game of its scale, budget, and concept, is completely normal. The romantic image of a group of artists painstakingly building a masterpiece slowly and carefully over many years, is a fantasy.
There's a couple Indie projects which were steadily made in a linear process by 1-3 people, but that's not because of the fantasy mentioned earlier, its because 1-3 can't make a large game quickly.
Damion Schubert of Bossfight wrote "Game development is NOT paint by numbers. Fun is subjective, the tech is mindbogglingly complex, and the market conditions you're aiming for are constantly moving.
He also said "AAA games are usually multiple miracles held together with ducktape."
