I just gotta say. What fucking idiots.
Why the hell would you outsource a fucking game like that lol.
Why would you be developing a game in a kitchen anyway
Silly Gearbox
Ugh. A good example of why publishers should not badger developers about deadlines.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39593931]Ugh. A good example of why publishers should not badger developers about deadlines.[/QUOTE]
Because an over 6 year deadline is such a hard one to meet, when you constantly ask for extensions and don't do any work.
I can't be the only one who misread the title as: "Aliens: Colonial Marines: how too many cocks may have ruined the game." Although I suppose that title could still apply.
It kind of appears as though this followed that phrase of "A Camel is a Horse designed by a committee" pretty well. But I still don't think this game is a 'horrible trainwreck' that people keep saying it is.
It is kind of disheartening to see the differences in that comparison video though, although I imagine I can understand the reasoning. It was kind of like that video comparison of Far Cry 3 shown at E3, and the state it is now. And that the E3 demo build had a lot of detail poured into it, and to apply it to the entirety of the game would have taken too long, so the only solution for a graphically constant game was to remove the good bits.
Judging by the deadline problems Colonial Marines had, this sounds like it would have made the most sense.
[QUOTE=DaDillsta;39594351]Because an over 6 year deadline is such a hard one to meet, when you constantly ask for extensions and don't do any work.[/QUOTE]
A fair point. But I wonder what SEGA would have said if Gearbox were to have just laid it out flat and say "Look, this is what the game is currently at". I think that even if SEGA had the hindsight from today, they still wouldn't have allowed the release date to be pushed back any further.
I suppose all we can do now is hope for a patch that can fix some of the bigger problems. But now that the game has come out, I doubt there will be any patches that will return the game to what we saw in that E3 beta footage (Dynamic lighting, fog, etc.).
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;39593931]Ugh. A good example of why publishers should not badger developers about deadlines.[/QUOTE]
That's usually the case, but Sega isn't the main culprit here, in fact they actually allowed it to be delayed twice. Gearbox managed the project very very poorly, in any of the cases.
They had enough time to push out a decent product, yet they didn't and not they are finger pointing Time Gate.
Except FC3 was good and ACM is a pile of messy shat.
[QUOTE=Psyke89;39594552]That's usually the case, but Sega isn't the main culprit here, in fact they actually allowed it to be delayed twice. Gearbox managed the project very very poorly, in any of the cases.
They had enough time to push out a decent product, yet they didn't and not they are finger pointing Time Gate.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think they could have made Aliens any better without damaging the quality of Borderlands 2. Although I don't know if they have any more projects on the burner right now, I know that multiple projects that are being worked on side-by-side will usually yield a result where one is worked on less, and either cancelled or made at a lower quality than the other.
What I think would be totally admirable of them though was if they went and continued working on the game. Going back and refining, and even changing the quality and design of the levels in the game, maybe even pulling it back up to the quality that we saw at E3.
I was talking about this with my friend, and we both agree that there is a lot of passion that was put in this game. There is so much quality that people are overlooking because of "this and that". I believe that if they were to pull this back into the workshop and tune it up and polish it a bit more, this game could become absolutely outstanding.
Couldn't they sue them for not following what they were given?
[QUOTE=LSK;39594701]Couldn't they sue them for not following what they were given?[/QUOTE]
Oh sure they can, and if it gets too out of hand they just might. SEGA isn't in the greatest position right now anyways, I enjoy the MP but this game was a rush job and it shows. They had 6 YEARS they probably made the game in 1 or 2 max. I think the problem was TimeGate was doing it right, but they bitched about the memory usage due to the power of the PS3, and Gearbox just ripped it apart and rebuilt it in UE3.
If a game takes 6 years to develop and it's being made by a relatively large, well funded dev team there are pretty much two diametrically opposed outcomes:
1. The dev team are well diciplined and working on something amazing, a magnum opus deserving of being in development for half a decade and will probably turn out being one of the best games of all time.
2. Failures at every level of development and management have caused a ridiculously long dev time , with most people losing faith in the project. If it even manages to get released after that amount of time the game will most likely be absolute shit.
A good way to tell which case it is is to look at the type of game: something like GTA is a massive undertaking which requires huge amounts of detail, with the logistics of research and development being patently massive, whereas an FPS with a 5 hour campaign as we see nowadays is less deserving of that dev time, since the nature of these games are that they have a fairly quick turnaround.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39594866]If a game takes 6 years to develop and it's being made by a relatively large, well funded dev team there are pretty much two diametrically opposed outcomes:
1. The dev team are well diciplined and working on something amazing, a magnum opus deserving of being in development for half a decade and will probably turn out being one of the best games of all time.
2. Failures at every level of development and management have caused a ridiculously long dev time , with most people losing faith in the project. If it even manages to get released after that amount of time the game will most likely be absolute shit.
A good way to tell which case it is is to look at the type of game: something like GTA is a massive undertaking which requires huge amounts of detail, with the logistics of research and development being patently massive, whereas an FPS with a 5 hour campaign as we see nowadays is less deserving of that dev time, since the nature of these games are that they have a fairly quick turnaround.[/QUOTE]Another good example for #2 would be Duke Nukem: Forever (although that was more than a decade in the making, but it still applies)
Reminds me of a story I once saw on the news, where a family rented out their house while they went overseas for a year, only to come back to the place completely trashed, walls collapsing, furniture destroyed.
I feel a bit bad for them having to essentially rebuild the game when they got it back from TG, but it was their choice to outsource to them in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
