4 ms·

Maybe. It’s also possible that being less able to offload the costs of bad project management onto your workers will just make them pursue more realistic projec

Maybe. It’s also possible that being less able to offload the costs of bad project management onto your workers will just make them pursue more realistic project plans. I see lots of AAA games loaded down with unnecessary cruft that adds little value to the overall experience and it makes me sad to think a bunch of poor devs probably had to grind through crunch to add it. I expect it’ll be a little from both columns.

astura 8y ago
Genuinely curious as to what you consider "unnecessary cruft."
- klodolph 8y ago
  If you look at most AAA games from a structural perspective, they are generally composed of many systems and modes of play. Compare to indie games, which typically have a much smaller number of different systems and modes. Think of a first-person shooter. You can add the ability to upgrade weapons and armor (a system) and add a fishing minigame to provide resources for upgrades (a new mode of play). Specifically, look at Just Cause 4. Your basic systems core to the gameplay are shooting things, the grappling hook, the parachute, the wingsuit, and vehicles. The unnecessary cruft is stuff like your ability to upgrade the grappling hook, the deployment of squads to capture territory, and supply drops. My impression is that AAA studios aren't stupid... they know that these extra systems and modes don't contribute much to the game. But they do contribute to customer's evaluation of whether the game is worth spending $60, and this contribute's to the bottom line. This is the same reason why manufacturers pack needless features into a product and skimp on core functionality. People are more likely to shop on the basis of feature lists than on the quality of core functionality. This is why I'm skeptical... the unnecessary cruft is there because it drives purchasing decisions, so it's not going away unless you change the way people purchase games.
- Jare 8y ago
  RDR2 got a famous one https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/09/21/red-dead-redemption-2-ps4-xbox-one-horse-testicles/ https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/09/21/red-dead-redemption-...
- TheGRS 8y ago
  Well, RDR2 for sure. So much in that game is there to make the game world realistic and beautiful (and it succeeds greatly!), but not a lot of attention to lasting gameplay.
- naravara 8y ago
  Others have mentioned RDR2 and the upgrade systems in Just Cause. They're both right and symptomatic of the larger problems. I think Ubisoft games are the worst at this. Tons of experimental or different game elements that don't contribute to the core game. You can play chess or other board games in the middle of Assassin's Creed III. It does nothing. They had this whole city-building subgame that added nothing. They had an inchoate pirate game in there that was actually engaging enough that they made an entire sequel centered on it, but it added nothing to the actual ACIII game itself. I can see evidence of all sort of "wouldn't it be cool if. . ." features that really don't need to be there and I can't help but think that if PMs actually had to think through what they're trying to do with their game they wouldn't do this as much. Bioware actually admitted to this after Mass Effect 3, claiming that they had never managed with so many resources at hand before and they couldn't really resist the impulse to bite off more than they can chew. This led to them adding in a bunch of extraneous side-quests and stuff that they didn't really get a chance to put enough time in to do it justice or make it worth anyone's while.

astura 8y ago

Genuinely curious as to what you consider "unnecessary cruft."

klodolph 8y ago
If you look at most AAA games from a structural perspective, they are generally composed of many systems and modes of play. Compare to indie games, which typically have a much smaller number of different systems and modes. Think of a first-person shooter. You can add the ability to upgrade weapons and armor (a system) and add a fishing minigame to provide resources for upgrades (a new mode of play). Specifically, look at Just Cause 4. Your basic systems core to the gameplay are shooting things, the grappling hook, the parachute, the wingsuit, and vehicles. The unnecessary cruft is stuff like your ability to upgrade the grappling hook, the deployment of squads to capture territory, and supply drops. My impression is that AAA studios aren't stupid... they know that these extra systems and modes don't contribute much to the game. But they do contribute to customer's evaluation of whether the game is worth spending $60, and this contribute's to the bottom line. This is the same reason why manufacturers pack needless features into a product and skimp on core functionality. People are more likely to shop on the basis of feature lists than on the quality of core functionality. This is why I'm skeptical... the unnecessary cruft is there because it drives purchasing decisions, so it's not going away unless you change the way people purchase games.
Jare 8y ago
RDR2 got a famous one https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/09/21/red-dead-redemption-2-ps4-xbox-one-horse-testicles/ https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/09/21/red-dead-redemption-...
TheGRS 8y ago
Well, RDR2 for sure. So much in that game is there to make the game world realistic and beautiful (and it succeeds greatly!), but not a lot of attention to lasting gameplay.
naravara 8y ago
Others have mentioned RDR2 and the upgrade systems in Just Cause. They're both right and symptomatic of the larger problems. I think Ubisoft games are the worst at this. Tons of experimental or different game elements that don't contribute to the core game. You can play chess or other board games in the middle of Assassin's Creed III. It does nothing. They had this whole city-building subgame that added nothing. They had an inchoate pirate game in there that was actually engaging enough that they made an entire sequel centered on it, but it added nothing to the actual ACIII game itself. I can see evidence of all sort of "wouldn't it be cool if. . ." features that really don't need to be there and I can't help but think that if PMs actually had to think through what they're trying to do with their game they wouldn't do this as much. Bioware actually admitted to this after Mass Effect 3, claiming that they had never managed with so many resources at hand before and they couldn't really resist the impulse to bite off more than they can chew. This led to them adding in a bunch of extraneous side-quests and stuff that they didn't really get a chance to put enough time in to do it justice or make it worth anyone's while.