3 ms·

That isn't true. No sane company will polish a game before knowing for certain the gameplay mechanics and art direction are final. It just costs incredible amou

That isn't true. No sane company will polish a game before knowing for certain the gameplay mechanics and art direction are final. It just costs incredible amounts of money to pivot at that point so nobody does it. Heck the projects that yielded the best games where I previously worked at were those who'd iterate like crazy on the prototype until they get down the gameplay mechanics, then throw it all away and start developing the real game sitting on that knowledge. Polish will make a game better but it won't make it go from boring to fun.

zubat 10y ago
It's a half truth. You can be sitting at a plateau in terms of how the game is percieved until you add a key piece of tech or a particular asset. Ideally, you can prove 100% of the concept in a preproduction state, where everything is functional but placeholder. That is not hard to achieve at small scopes. Sometimes you end up needing to go a little farther, though, as the aesthetics do make a tangible difference. It takes good design skills to know how well developed the concept is, and for really tech-driven stuff you have to try building it to understand it. That said, it also depends on what elements are critical to the design goals. If you're driven by writing, you had better already have a novel or two of drafts already written before you sink any budget into it. If you're going for a tight set of action mechanics, expect to spend a long time looking at a prototype with a bunch of colored shapes. There are many stories of wasted work in AAA, and a lot of it stems from being too hasty to pull the trigger on production and expecting the people making work at final quality to pull rabbits out of hats and fill in a lot of missing blanks as they go along, only to be sent back to the start for a retake of entire scenes.
taneq 10y ago
Eeeeeh, "final" is such a strong word. They won't (or shouldn't) spend much time polishing assets before they've sufficiently tested out (and polished) the core gameplay. But yeah, they shouldn't invest too much until they're confident that the game's going in the right direction.

zubat 10y ago

It's a half truth. You can be sitting at a plateau in terms of how the game is percieved until you add a key piece of tech or a particular asset. Ideally, you can prove 100% of the concept in a preproduction state, where everything is functional but placeholder. That is not hard to achieve at small scopes. Sometimes you end up needing to go a little farther, though, as the aesthetics do make a tangible difference. It takes good design skills to know how well developed the concept is, and for really tech-driven stuff you have to try building it to understand it. That said, it also depends on what elements are critical to the design goals. If you're driven by writing, you had better already have a novel or two of drafts already written before you sink any budget into it. If you're going for a tight set of action mechanics, expect to spend a long time looking at a prototype with a bunch of colored shapes. There are many stories of wasted work in AAA, and a lot of it stems from being too hasty to pull the trigger on production and expecting the people making work at final quality to pull rabbits out of hats and fill in a lot of missing blanks as they go along, only to be sent back to the start for a retake of entire scenes.

taneq 10y ago

Eeeeeh, "final" is such a strong word. They won't (or shouldn't) spend much time polishing assets before they've sufficiently tested out (and polished) the core gameplay. But yeah, they shouldn't invest too much until they're confident that the game's going in the right direction.