See now, I have to wonder how much crunch time those big-time developers really do. L.A. Noire took 7 years, not because they were spit-shining the game to perfection, but because they had piss-poor management, they fired/hired people left and right, there was no focused direction, and McNamara was a douche. Battlefield 3, along with the new Frostbite engine, has probably been in development alongside DICE's other projects, so would they really need any perpetual crunch time?bobisimo said:But I don't think you can make the next Battlefield 3 or GTA 4 or L.A. Noire or whatever, that title that represents a brand new engine and technology with all new assets, without investing a ton of overtime hours for a very large team over a long period of time -- a long period of time that is nowhere near as long as it should be.
Blizzard, VALVe, Rockstar, hell even PopCap all employ the "it's done when it's done" mentality to their games, which leads me to believe that they don't have much crunch time. They respect their employees and they have direction. Again, I'm not saying do away with crunch time all together, shit hits the fan every now and again. But if the shit continues to hit the fan, more crunch isn't going to solve it.
Sure, it must feel great to be a part of a huge project. That does not excuse treating your employees like garbage. I bet even Micheal Bay treated his crew with more respect than these developers, the game industry right now is remarkably similar to the film industry circa 1960s/70s with mistreated crew.Those games sell big numbers (they need to, at least), and that appeals to those involved on the business side. Plus there's something appealing about creating something so monumentally big, even if it's as bad as the recent Transformers movie.
Insomniac's Resistance series is anything but simple or stylize (to an extent, it is), but that's not the point. You can easily make big-budget games (Resistance could be considered a big-budget game, but let's assume it isn't) without resorting to these kinds of deplorable conditions. I would be very interested to see the working conditions of many big developers (VALVe, Rockstar, Eidos (Deus Ex looks friggin' awesome), Insomniac, Naughty Dog, various EA developers, etc...).If we follow suit with the Insomniac approach -- simpler, stylized graphics, more focus on the game's design, etc. -- then maybe we're all in a better place. But I don't know that gamers will ever stop wanting those big-budget titles, nor do I think developers will ever want to stop making them.
The thing is, your options won't be necessary so long as the actual management and development of the game is done smoothly. Yeah, sure, shit hits the fan, but it's this mindset that overworking the employees and putting them in longer hours will somehow make the whole thing more productive in the long run when it doesn't.Maybe I'm creating/relying on a lot of fallacies along the way, but that's how I get to a point where I see the options I mentioned earlier as the only viable routes to take this. We can make a game and then build on that foundation -- which kind of seems to be the Assassin's Creed approach. Maybe that is the best real-world situation. :\