Why do some games take years to develop and still underperform?

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

Some could be the players expectations get to high because they know how long it's been in developement.

But with Too Human they had to switch platforms twice. From the PS1 to the GCN to the 360. They have been working it it since that but they didn't optimize it for those systems.

Any number of reasons, that could include redesigns, development of an engine, producing artwork, composing music, writing the story etc etc.

They underperform because the original idea could have been flawed, developer skill isn't good, launching against a backdrop of higher quality titles etc, etc.

Some could be the players expectations get to high because they know how long it's been in developement.

But with Too Human they had to switch platforms twice. From the PS1 to the GCN to the 360. They have been working it it since that but they didn't optimize it for those systems.

Nintendo_Ownes7

Comes down to the talent of the developers. Red Dead Redemption took 6 years and it was worth it.Parasomniac

OP, have YOU ever developed a game? Do you like switches?

Thought so.

This just in: Games are difficult to make! :shock:

Because games are always redirected during the developpement, always deleting parts that have been done, and restarting on something else. Most times, the final product doesn't represent the whole project, but only the final choice they made, 3 years after they started to develop...

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

[QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

RTUUMM

not FF.

Alan Wake was already a small team...but MS giving them money to make a great game....seems ok to me.

Too Human was owned by Nintendo for a while, MS didn't have any affiliation until 2005. and I doubt MS would put down a whole $80 million for 1 game.

this is also ignoring that the game moved across 3-4 platforms...

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"][QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

not FF.

Alan Wake was already a small team...but MS giving them money to make a great game....seems ok to me.

Too Human was owned by Nintendo for a while, MS didn't have any affiliation until 2005. and I doubt MS would put down a whole $80 million for 1 game.

this is also ignoring that the game moved across 3-4 platforms...

Too human is a good example of this idea. When a game pushes the 5-6 year limit it either has to be released then or they will need to scrap what they have, and update all assets. Which is what happened with titles like Too Human, Prey, etc.

This is also a matter of skill. Would you rather have a game a well respected developer like Naughty Dog finely crafted in the matter of 2 years or some project that nobodies hammered on for 10-15 years?

Too many people on the team, the team is uncoordinated (i.e. everyone is doing their own thing, no one is guiding the group), too lofty of a goal without the resources to reach it, not enough time spent on bug-testing/-fixing, more money spent on advertising than actual development...

Many reasons.

For alan wake I'd gather that they were forced to change their original idea (so the 360 could run the game properly) so that added more dev time to finish the game.

misdirection, and poor execution.Nonstop-Madness

For alan wake I'd gather that they were forced to change their original idea (so the 360 could run the game properly) so that added more dev time to finish the game.

Espada12

nobody (knowing what they are doing) goes into a project saying ok we're going to spend 5+ years working on this...

normally the game goes through a ton of problems and well the more problems you go through the worse off your project is going to be.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"] TC you notice that M$ was involve with all those games. Hm......................................................RTUUMM

not FF.

Alan Wake was already a small team...but MS giving them money to make a great game....seems ok to me.

Too Human was owned by Nintendo for a while, MS didn't have any affiliation until 2005. and I doubt MS would put down a whole $80 million for 1 game.

this is also ignoring that the game moved across 3-4 platforms...

too human was just a fail on everyones part tho seeing as it went from sony to nintendo to MS :P

Suspiciously absent is Killzone 2.......i wonder why? Sure it scored a 9 here, but with the hype around it, it shouldve sold MGS4/UC2 numbers and have a strong multiplayer base but it doesnt. Why leave out that 360 has run bigger and better games than Alan Wake, why do people continue to use this?navyguy21

Umm why would Killzone 2 be mentioned in this thread?

I mean you may not like the direction of the story, diolouge or even the gameplay but the game itself definantly did not "underproform", it's universally AAA And it was Gamespots 2009 FPS of the year all while setting a new standard for graphics and immersion for console games.

This thread isn't about sales, you are thinking about the wrong kind of proformance. This is about the hypothetical quality a game was supposed to acheive but failed to meet those expectations by a large margin.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Suspiciously absent is Killzone 2.......i wonder why? Sure it scored a 9 here, but with the hype around it, it shouldve sold MGS4/UC2 numbers and have a strong multiplayer base but it doesnt. Why leave out that 360 has run bigger and better games than Alan Wake, why do people continue to use this?hard_body79

Umm why would Killzone 2 be mentioned in this thread?

I mean you may not like the direction of the story, diolouge or even the gameplay but the game itself definantly did not "underproform", it's universally AAA And it was Gamespots 2009 FPS of the year all while setting a new standard for graphics and immersion for console games.

This thread isn't about sales, you are thinking about the wrong kind of proformance. This is about the hypotheticalquality a game was supposed to acheivebut failed by a large measure to meet those expectations.

[QUOTE="hard_body79"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Suspiciously absent is Killzone 2.......i wonder why? Sure it scored a 9 here, but with the hype around it, it shouldve sold MGS4/UC2 numbers and have a strong multiplayer base but it doesnt. Why leave out that 360 has run bigger and better games than Alan Wake, why do people continue to use this?navyguy21

Umm why would Killzone 2 be mentioned in this thread?

I mean you may not like the direction of the story, diolouge or even the gameplay but the game itself definantly did not "underproform", it's universally AAA And it was Gamespots 2009 FPS of the year all while setting a new standard for graphics and immersion for console games.

This thread isn't about sales, you are thinking about the wrong kind of proformance. This is about the hypotheticalquality a game was supposed to acheivebut failed by a large measure to meet those expectations.

What it was said to be by fansbefore it's release...

Graphics King?

Open World?

Best story in video games?

720p?

Best game ever, GOTYAAAA?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="hard_body79"]

Umm why would Killzone 2 be mentioned in this thread?

I mean you may not like the direction of the story, diolouge or even the gameplay but the game itself definantly did not "underproform", it's universally AAA And it was Gamespots 2009 FPS of the year all while setting a new standard for graphics and immersion for console games.

This thread isn't about sales, you are thinking about the wrong kind of proformance. This is about the hypotheticalquality a game was supposed to acheivebut failed by a large measure to meet those expectations.

hard_body79

What it was said to be by fansbefore it's release...

Graphics King?

Open World?

Best story in video games?

720p?

Best game ever, GOTYAAAA?

Suspiciously absent is Killzone 2.......i wonder why? Sure it scored a 9 here, but with the hype around it, it shouldve sold MGS4/UC2 numbers and have a strong multiplayer base but it doesnt. Why leave out that?[QUOTE="Espada12"]

For alan wake I'd gather that they were forced to change their original idea (so the 360 could run the game properly) so that added more dev time to finish the game.

navyguy21

Like what? What game has those visuals and run on the 360 properly?

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

OwnallConsoles

Err, the gameplay is fantastic :? And remedy has a small dev team.

Apart from that i agree with the rest...

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Suspiciously absent is Killzone 2.......i wonder why? Sure it scored a 9 here, but with the hype around it, it shouldve sold MGS4/UC2 numbers and have a strong multiplayer base but it doesnt. Why leave out that?[QUOTE="Espada12"]

For alan wake I'd gather that they were forced to change their original idea (so the 360 could run the game properly) so that added more dev time to finish the game.

Like what? What game has those visuals and run on the 360 properly?

I thought Too Human was fun as a coop game. There were a couple of facepalming design decisions but it could have been tightened up with a simple patch.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] 360 has run bigger and better games than Alan Wake, why do people continue to use this?racing1750

Like what? What game has those visuals and run on the 360 properly?

Gears of war 2 has better visuals than AW? :S. My point was that no open world game with those visuals can run on the 360 properly.

Too Human- Wow what a crappy game. In and out of development for close to a decade and it was a huge dissapointment.

Alan Wake- 6years of development for what? A good looking game and the gameplay is alright. 6 years of development for a game that will last you 6-8 hours. I don't get it. Was not even that good

Final Fantasy 13- Years of development for a game that was not even a true JRPG. No towns, Linear paths, and focused on action. for what?

I just don't get how a development house could spend years on a project for it to be mediocre or just good.

OwnallConsoles

ahh Too Human I was really excited for that game nearly picked up a 360 for it

and then came the reviews

[QUOTE="hard_body79"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] So why is Alan Wake up there?......navyguy21

What it was said to be by fansbefore it's release...

Graphics King?

Open World?

Best story in video games?

720p?

Best game ever, GOTYAAAA?

:| Ok, but I don't really have an opinion on it buddy.

You were the one who decided to point out Killzone 2 when clearly it dosen't fit into the definition of "underproform" which this thread is talking about. I don't even like Killzone 2, to so say it underproformed considering the impact it had on gamers, journalists and developers alike is obsurd.

How did Killzone 2 "underproform" when other deveoplers and even MS are trying to match or supass the standards set by this game?

Microsoft:

"We congratulate Sony and Guerilla Games for their efforts with Killzone 2, however this is only the beginning of a new wave. The current technology employed for certain unannounced Xbox 360 exclusives far surpasses what gamers have seen in any game so far. Gears of War was the beginning of this technological benchmark when released on the 360 and this lineage will be carried forward in the following months with exclusives that shall stand for a new definition of gaming experience and provide stiff competition for the opposition."

http://www.gameguru.in/microsoft-xbox-360/2009/02/future-xbox-360-exclusives-will-surpass-killzone-2-microsoft/

Crytek:

Richard Morgan answered: "As the lead writer of Crysis 2, they have numerous times showed me Crysis 2. This way I can visualise the scenes and scripts for the story event. I can tell you now what I have seen of Crysis 2 in alpha stages, surpasses Killzone2."

http://www.fpstime.com/2010/04/crysis-2s-graphics-surpasses-killzone-2/

Weren't you one of the ones who hyped Alan Wake to be an "open world" game and now it turns out to be linear? How about the game being 720p? what about being xbox360's first guaranteedAAAe for 2010? what about being graphics king dethrowning all of PS3's best looking games?

The only thing people expected or bragged about with KZ2 was the graphics so how in the world could it have underproformed when it came away with AAA and FPS GOTY as well?

OP, have YOU ever developed a game? Do you like switches?

Thought so.

wintermute0

For alan wake I'd gather that they were forced to change their original idea (so the 360 could run the game properly) so that added more dev time to finish the game.

Espada12

Lots can happen in the span of a couple years. Heck, a significant change in a single year can derail a while project.

And at times, it has nothing to do with the actual programmers or artists. There may be management changes in the form of buyouts and restructuring. There could a shift in funding. There may be a change in th relationship with the publisher. Could be that a franchise has changed ownership bringing up a whole slew of legal matters that could take months if not years to settle. Maybe a downswing in a local economy. Perhaps work that was contracted out has changed the scope of the development cycle.

There really is no simple answer here. There's a business side of things that we just don't have a good view into.