4 ms·

HL to Cyberpunk 2077 is very much apples to oranges, on many levels. * The team size required for a modern day AAA title is significantly higher than that of H

by Guthur 6y ago

HL to Cyberpunk 2077 is very much apples to oranges, on many levels. * The team size required for a modern day AAA title is significantly higher than that of HL days. * The games design choices are vastly different. HL was very on the rails, though hides it it really well by giving you the illusion of a large world, this a really great design trick and HL is rightly lauded for it. In contrast CP2077 aims to be closer to a true open world that tries to provide a linear storyline inside a large world with more open level design with many auxilary story lines and interactive world building. * HL had a single platform focus (PC) for the initial development whereas CP2077 try to straddle two very different hardware generations and a multitude of platforms. If CP2077 had, in a hypothetical world, only focused on PC and maybe current gen consoles (PS5 and XBox S) it would not have nearly the same level of negative press.

EliRivers 6y ago
The team size required for a modern day AAA title is significantly higher than that of HL days. I'm often left unconvinced by statements like this. Is it that the team size for a modern AAA title is required to be so large, or is it just that they are so large? The diminishing returning from making teams ever bigger makes me wonder if having such large teams are just a sign of low-level, dragging general incompetence somewhere in the chain of people running the whole thing. I don't have any hard evidence either way, but every so often when I see a small, well-run team of competent people turn out something really good, I wonder.
- Guthur 6y ago
  For CP2077 vs HL it's pretty obvious why it would need to be a lot larger, with the sheer volume of art assets, story writing, level design, voice acting, game balancing and engine sophistication required. But I'll be the first to echo your sentiment that there are massive diminishing returns on team size. Of course in many ways AAAs have dug their own pit of despair with this, they throw so much investment into it that they need to make sure they appeal to as large an audience as possible and cram as much content as possible in, while also having an eye to DLC later down the line, the economics demand it. Hence why CP2077 had to desperately try to get it to work on last gen console, otherwise they'd be immediately removing a massive portion of the market. As consumers we can get as much enjoyment out of some indie level gamer. I for one have play way more hours of The Binding of Isaac than any AAA title I've played and it would have been a fraction of the development costs.
- rhacker 6y ago
  I think the team size grows with open-world multiple storyline type games like Oblivion/Skyrim. I haven't played CP2077 but from the sound of it, it's in that realm. They have a core group that programs the actual mechanics, physics, play - but then separate teams create content missions and bosses (and boss fights). That's where the spend is. And a lot of people can play these games for a really long time because there are a lot of different side missions. ... and eventually DLC.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  A lot of what defines AAA games these days is that, as much as possible, every moment has some kind of hand crafted element to it, often not constructed from the core mechanics. In the days of half life and what not, distinct content was mostly in the form of level design and enemy placement and what not. In AAA games of today its from scripted sequences that are more movie esque. I think its a bad direction tbh. It's too expensive and, especially in an open world game, you end up with an uncanny valley of super deep and super uninteresting gaps of content. I think breath of the wild was the one game to make a more traditional approach work with open world content. There's NOT a lot scripted sequences. Most of the fun is emergent from a small but comprehensive physics system. You don't see a whole lot of new elements around each corner, but it works. But if your goal is hip cliche AAA game, yeah, you need the huge team. I don't know if its much of a diminishing marginal utility of devs/artists either, so much as a sprawling tree of parallel but unrelated pieces. The newer tomb raiders are the epitome of this to me. Every five minutes you're on a death defying leap with crumbling architecture or whatever. As close to the video game ideal of "every frame a painting".
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    To me, more successful "open-world" games these days are not that open, but are rather smaller, denser, and sometimes vertical. Sleeping Dogs nearly a decade ago and Yakuza now fit that paradigm, and do pretty well for it. A handcrafted open world doesn't scale all that well, and Cyberpunk, from my impressions, seems to be both large and vertical, which makes the challenge even harder. Pretty much the only open-world I've enjoyed in recent years is BOTW, and that world is pretty empty, if only because the setting is literally an apocalypse where most people died. (In fact, for people arguing for interaction density, there is a collectible in the game that is revealed when it is 100% to be a pile of feces, specifically to make fun of 100%-ters.)

by Guthur 6y ago

EliRivers 6y ago

The team size required for a modern day AAA title is significantly higher than that of HL days. I'm often left unconvinced by statements like this. Is it that the team size for a modern AAA title is required to be so large, or is it just that they are so large? The diminishing returning from making teams ever bigger makes me wonder if having such large teams are just a sign of low-level, dragging general incompetence somewhere in the chain of people running the whole thing. I don't have any hard evidence either way, but every so often when I see a small, well-run team of competent people turn out something really good, I wonder.

Guthur 6y ago
For CP2077 vs HL it's pretty obvious why it would need to be a lot larger, with the sheer volume of art assets, story writing, level design, voice acting, game balancing and engine sophistication required. But I'll be the first to echo your sentiment that there are massive diminishing returns on team size. Of course in many ways AAAs have dug their own pit of despair with this, they throw so much investment into it that they need to make sure they appeal to as large an audience as possible and cram as much content as possible in, while also having an eye to DLC later down the line, the economics demand it. Hence why CP2077 had to desperately try to get it to work on last gen console, otherwise they'd be immediately removing a massive portion of the market. As consumers we can get as much enjoyment out of some indie level gamer. I for one have play way more hours of The Binding of Isaac than any AAA title I've played and it would have been a fraction of the development costs.
rhacker 6y ago
I think the team size grows with open-world multiple storyline type games like Oblivion/Skyrim. I haven't played CP2077 but from the sound of it, it's in that realm. They have a core group that programs the actual mechanics, physics, play - but then separate teams create content missions and bosses (and boss fights). That's where the spend is. And a lot of people can play these games for a really long time because there are a lot of different side missions. ... and eventually DLC.
klmadfejno 6y ago
A lot of what defines AAA games these days is that, as much as possible, every moment has some kind of hand crafted element to it, often not constructed from the core mechanics. In the days of half life and what not, distinct content was mostly in the form of level design and enemy placement and what not. In AAA games of today its from scripted sequences that are more movie esque. I think its a bad direction tbh. It's too expensive and, especially in an open world game, you end up with an uncanny valley of super deep and super uninteresting gaps of content. I think breath of the wild was the one game to make a more traditional approach work with open world content. There's NOT a lot scripted sequences. Most of the fun is emergent from a small but comprehensive physics system. You don't see a whole lot of new elements around each corner, but it works. But if your goal is hip cliche AAA game, yeah, you need the huge team. I don't know if its much of a diminishing marginal utility of devs/artists either, so much as a sprawling tree of parallel but unrelated pieces. The newer tomb raiders are the epitome of this to me. Every five minutes you're on a death defying leap with crumbling architecture or whatever. As close to the video game ideal of "every frame a painting".
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  To me, more successful "open-world" games these days are not that open, but are rather smaller, denser, and sometimes vertical. Sleeping Dogs nearly a decade ago and Yakuza now fit that paradigm, and do pretty well for it. A handcrafted open world doesn't scale all that well, and Cyberpunk, from my impressions, seems to be both large and vertical, which makes the challenge even harder. Pretty much the only open-world I've enjoyed in recent years is BOTW, and that world is pretty empty, if only because the setting is literally an apocalypse where most people died. (In fact, for people arguing for interaction density, there is a collectible in the game that is revealed when it is 100% to be a pile of feces, specifically to make fun of 100%-ters.)