View Single Post
Old 08-12-19, 20:13   #12
Kapu
Professor
 
Kapu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northwoods of Wisconsin
Posts: 3,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebCroc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapu View Post
I don't even think the developers had a concrete vision of what they wanted the game to be. That lack of vision definitely contributed to the development hell AOD went through.
I'd say this is unfair. Every ambitious creative project is constantly in flux until the moment of completion. It has to be. Think on how many rewrites and cuts a film may go through; you've got many people contributing, revising, reiterating... improving. They had the ambition, direction, tone, aesthetic and story, but it was the many pressures coming from all kinds of places, all at the most inopportune times, one after another, that prevented them from being able to reach the level of completeness they wanted. You can tell there was still something anchoring the project despite the "chaos".
Oh I agree that basically all projects are in a state of flux, as you said, until they are complete. But allow me to clarify with a few quotes from the Eurogamer article -

Quote:
The Tomb Raider team swelled from 12 to 60, then 100.

[...]

The Angel of Darkness' disastrous development, people who worked on the game say, was down to a lack of structure, a lack of process, and a failure of management. Core had no idea how to manage a project of its size. Staff were rudderless and demotivated. The game was too ambitious. It tried to do too many different things.

[...]

"There hadn't been enough organisation," [Gavin Rummery] says. "Everyone was keeping their head down. No-one wanted to take responsibility, so it had no leadership. It was just the mess you would expect to get if you allowed 40 people to do their thing without anyone coordinating it."

[...]

"I started off with the lead programmer and said, so what's the problem?" Rummery remembers. "Why are these not getting sorted out? He said, oh well, blah blah blah. You need to talk to the person who's putting them in. I went to talk to this guy and he went, blah blah blah, you need to go and talk to this person. I went through a chain of six people. The last person went: yeah, you need to go and talk to the lead programmer.

"Oh my god. I'd gone in a circle. So I went, right, you six, come with me! We need to talk this out! We thrashed out who needed to do what and what the problems were. Everyone was waiting on someone else."
Source

This is what I mean when I say the team didn't have a concrete vision of the game. What I should have said was they did not have a unified vision. They had this massive team but no one was communicating with each other. It's not just that the final product was being revised, tweaked, etc as development went on, it's that team a was doing one thing and team b another, and neither was in sync. It's just not possible to bring a product together in a cohesive way when the goal post is not only moving, but no one knows where that goal post even is.
Kapu is offline   Reply With Quote