How many years in development is "okay" for a game?

[Pat8u]

Maybe developers should have a group of developers work a day shift and another group work a night shift so they can be developing 24/7.

Unless they already do that...

its most likely more like one team does work at day and they do some more work after they go home and don't goto sleep untill one(unless they're the game designers)I think team bondi wasn't the only company doing that sort of system

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Whenever it's done. This shouldn't even be considered a valid topic of discussion.

 

[Maveroid]

its gotta be more than 1

just look at assins creed and how well THAT is going

I disagree as someone who supports iterative improvements for planned series. Ubisoft created a sound gameplay engine with AC2 and are keeping the tension in the story high (for those who care) through cliffhangers and by not waiting a billion years between each release. Iterative improvements means that they aren't changing things up so much that they render prior games unplayable (save for the AC1-AC2 jump.)

People's opinions of its story notwithstanding, I care a fair bit about what happens next in ACIII thanks to those techniques. And speaking as someone who holds Half-Life 2 as his favorite FPS...You know what I don't give a shit about anymore? Gordon Freeman, or the G-man, or Alyx, or anyone in that series.

But I'm sure I'm alone in that. I'm sure their terrifyingly complicated follow-up to HL2 will have a Song of Ice and Fire-level scope and glaringly photoreal graphics that paint a gorgeous bleak symphony of decay and hope through it's environments, create gender equality through Alyx Vance's character arc and finally elevate games to "art" status--

Just kidding. I waited less than most, but those who've waited since HL2's launch have stuck with it for the greater part of a decade...for a point-and-pew-pew first person shooter vidyigaem whose story you fill in the blanks for yourself.

More time = more polish, yes, but devs should keep things in perspective. Too much time = waning interest. No work of art is worth Blizzard or Valve time to me anyway.

I agree with you. The only thing I would like to add is something that is particularly wrong with games that try to be episodic games but are not.

I am in love with the Assassin's Creed franchise and story and have no problem with a new game being released every year or even new iterations of an old fighting game every half year.

I just think that Ubisoft should consider releasing the game for $40 as many fighting game expansions are being sold for nowadays. I don't know much about business, but doesn't Ubisoft pay less development costs now because of an already developed engine and such? I think they could reduce the price without losing any money. Of course they want more money, (understandable, I would want it too)(ESPECIALLY when everyone is still buying the product) but it does sound a little bit wrong.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

How long should a game be in development? As many years as it takes, assuming steady progress. Game developers shouldn't let a project languish on the company shelf -- either suck it up and finish it, or kick it and let the rest of us move on. None of this Duke Nukem Forever crap.

I respect Blizzard for taking all the time they need to produce a great game. I lost a lot of respect for Konami when they axed Metal Gear Rising, didn't tell anyone, let us think it was just sitting there, then started making it all over again. Either make progress or quit. It's not the length of time, it's what you're doing with that time, that counts. If you're sitting on your ass or working on other projects, at least be honest with your fans about it.

 

[Auron225]

3-5 years I think. More if its really needed. I think it gets to a point where if it needs longer than that, Im gonna forget the game is even being made and could lose interest in it.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I agree that a game should take as long as it needs to get finished. The thing that I would hate is to have waited a short amount of time for a highly anticipated game only to find that it's buggy, non-responsive, short (in a bad sense), lacks polish, and that it overall feels rushed or incomplete.

HOWEVER, I do not approve of having a new installment promised, or have been teased about being in development and then never hearing about said game again. I can hear all kinds of excuses like "we do not have the funds to develop said sequel" or "we are currently pursuing other projects at the moment," yet they continue to include somewhat meaningless sequel or installment without the promise of true sequel being released. I understand that developers do this to keep people interested in the franchise while a sequel is under development, but simply releasing a trailer or demo with actual gameplay is enough to let fans know that a sequel is underway and that the developers value their patience.

Square Enix and Capcom are the main culprits of these practices; rather than taking the time to develop a truly stunning game that people have been waiting patiently for, they release lackluster or incomplete products (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII and Marvel vs. Capcom 3, respectfully) and rather than work on products that the fans are asking for (i.e. Kingdom Hearts 3 and Megan Legends 3), they want to 'continue' working on a product they feel still has potential or 'needs' to be completed (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII-2 and Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3).

 

[TsunamiWombat]

2-4 years. Yearly releases are the Video Game equiv of Junkfood- they can taste good, but theres no substance to them and you forget about them soon after.

 

[Emperor Nat]

As many as it takes... Look at blizzards games.

If your game is going to suck either trash it or take as much time as it needs.

DONT RELEASE UNFINISHED FUCKING GAMES!!!!!

This. A game should be in development for exactly as long as it needs to be in development for. If it takes 13 years to make a good game, awesome. If it takes 9 minutes, awesome. But if it takes 1 year to make a crappy game... it wasn't being developed long enough.

 

[DanielBrown]

As many as they need, but I'd prefer if they didn't announce it until 1-2 years before it's released. Saves us some pain...
Damn you, Diablo III!!!1

 

[Chased]

Announcing a game say 5 years before it comes out generates tons of unnecessary hype and rumors. Other than that as long as it takes.

 

[an874]

As many as it takes... Look at blizzards games.

If your game is going to suck either trash it or take as much time as it needs.

DONT RELEASE UNFINISHED FUCKING GAMES!!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself. Take all the time you need, we'll wait. Some of us might ***** when a release date is pushed back, but if the game turns out well, the same fans will be the first to express gratitude for not wasting anyone's time and money.

 

[shroomie]

2 to 3 is a decent enough time for large titles, not factoring in unexpected delays and costs. Obviously some studios may take longer but waiting for something makes it worthwhile (DNF is the exception which proves the rule)

 

[Wintermoot]

between 1 and 5 years (except for Valve because they rule)

 

[Woodsey]

3-5 years seems to be the sweet spot (although obviously there are deviations from that).

Any game that goes through any major redesigns during development, anything that has a project lead (lead writer, creative director, etc.) leave, and anything that's out a year after the previous should not be trusted to be good.

its gotta be more than 1

just look at assins creed and how well THAT is going

I disagree as someone who supports iterative improvements for planned series. Ubisoft created a sound gameplay engine with AC2 and are keeping the tension in the story high (for those who care) through cliffhangers and by not waiting a billion years between each release. Iterative improvements means that they aren't changing things up so much that they render prior games unplayable (save for the AC1-AC2 jump.)

People's opinions of its story notwithstanding, I care a fair bit about what happens next in ACIII thanks to those techniques. And speaking as someone who holds Half-Life 2 as his favorite FPS...You know what I don't give a shit about anymore? Gordon Freeman, or the G-man, or Alyx, or anyone in that series.

But I'm sure I'm alone in that. I'm sure their terrifyingly complicated follow-up to HL2 will have a Song of Ice and Fire-level scope and glaringly photoreal graphics that paint a gorgeous bleak symphony of decay and hope through it's environments, create gender equality through Alyx Vance's character arc and finally elevate games to "art" status--

Just kidding. I waited less than most, but those who've waited since HL2's launch have stuck with it for the greater part of a decade...for a point-and-pew-pew first person shooter vidyigaem whose story you fill in the blanks for yourself.

More time = more polish, yes, but devs should keep things in perspective. Too much time = waning interest. No work of art is worth Blizzard or Valve time to me anyway.

I agree with you. The only thing I would like to add is something that is particularly wrong with games that try to be episodic games but are not.

I am in love with the Assassin's Creed franchise and story and have no problem with a new game being released every year or even new iterations of an old fighting game every half year.

If you were in love with the story then I'd have thought you'd take issue with it becoming a complete and utter mess. It seems to be spiraling out of control whilst going absolutely nowhere.

 

[bojackx]

I wouldn't say there's an "unspoken law" when it comes to the amount of time a game is in development. It is dependent on the game they're developing. 2D platformers will take considerably less time than an open-world RPG with multiple side quests.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

More than a year, at least for big sequels. Silent Hill 2 took a couple years and it was worth it. Silent Hill 3 took barely a year and was nearly completely rehashed. Resident Evil became a punch line after the 3rd game.

Blizzard went long with Starcraft, there is a fine medium around 2 or 3 years for a game.

 

[dills2]

i dont care when its released but the perfect time is a time where the developers dont have to rush

 

[CleverCover]

I'd like to say 5 to 7 years should be a reasonable goal, but I'd also like to say until you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the game is finished and ready for purchase without any devastating bugs or obvious cash-ins.

 

[Sethzard]

I would say probably 3, that seems to work best.