Red Dead Redemption coming May 2010

captaninsayno said:
While shitty, I can understand why a company would do this. Unless the studio already had another game planned, what could they possibly need the workforce used to create an entire game for, after release? You don't need that many people for DLC and patching...

again, very shitty. but i can see the reasoning.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. Not speaking for R* here, but for the industry in general - most 'AAA' games have a pretty long dev cycle (RDR was ~5 years). As you get closer to your ship date deadlines get tighter, money gets tighter, and there's a lot of pressure to finish the game (this is why ppl crunch). Even at a company like R* or Blizzard or Valve, where you can afford to let dates slip, there's still a lot of pressure to just finish the fucking game already. To help do that they ramp up team size and get more and more people working on the project.

In addition to that, there's a lot of work that's done in the last half of the project that just isn't possible in the first half. Level designers don't have anything to do if the level building tool isn't made yet, and the level building tool can't be made until there's a semblance of a working game engine, etc, etc. All of that takes time. Not to mention iterating, testing, adjusting, bug fixing, etc. Making games that are as expansive (and costly) as they are today takes a lot of people a lot of time, and the bulk of the work that the end-user actually sees is done later in the project.
 
speaking of RDR i have to still finish it. I've only got like 2-3 more missions in the main storyline. Next is to get all of the SP trophies. GOTTA KILL ME SUM BUFFALO

awesome, awesome game
 
I was disappointed with the way RDR ended

Spoiler
 
Ranger-=VuP=- said:
That's pretty much it. Not speaking for R* here, but for the industry in general - most 'AAA' games have a pretty long dev cycle (RDR was ~5 years). As you get closer to your ship date deadlines get tighter, money gets tighter, and there's a lot of pressure to finish the game (this is why ppl crunch). Even at a company like R* or Blizzard or Valve, where you can afford to let dates slip, there's still a lot of pressure to just finish the fucking game already. To help do that they ramp up team size and get more and more people working on the project.

In addition to that, there's a lot of work that's done in the last half of the project that just isn't possible in the first half. Level designers don't have anything to do if the level building tool isn't made yet, and the level building tool can't be made until there's a semblance of a working game engine, etc, etc. All of that takes time. Not to mention iterating, testing, adjusting, bug fixing, etc. Making games that are as expansive (and costly) as they are today takes a lot of people a lot of time, and the bulk of the work that the end-user actually sees is done later in the project.
Click to expand...

I completely understand this. But IMO there is a huge difference in hiring people on as temporary workers to help through this process, than hiring people under the guise of full time employment, then laying them off. If this was the case at R*, why was it reported as layoffs? If they were just contracted, it probably wouldn't have made news.

Companies like Blizzard and Valve though have seemed to have figured a way to not have to deal with massive layoffs post release of a title.
 
Last edited:
[SES]BaNsHee said:
So is this game as good as what Ivee been hearing from some friends? Was thinking about grabbing it.
Click to expand...

I grabbed it on a black friday sale and so far it is fun. I think maybe a little overrated though.

I don't like the direction Rockstar is going with GTA4 and this game. They go for gritty realism over that over the top mindless fun. It depends what you are into.

Still a fun game overall. I'm enjoying it way more than GTA4.
 
I got about 1/2 way through the story line but had done so much of the side quest stuff that I had encountered all the mission types and got bored. And the voice acting was sooo stilted at times I found it distracting and pulled me out of the experience... I stopped playing and sold it.

I could go on about the things that I didn't like but its not worth it.

Overall not a bad game but def not game of the year...
 
I don't put any stock into video game awards, but I'm just glad most people aren't fucking stupid enough to think Black Ops or Reach deserve game of the year.

SMG2 or ME2 are fine choices but I'd go with RDR in a heartbeat if I had to pick one.
 
RDR is great. As in to a sandbox game as I ever got. Also, if you 100% the main campaign, get the Undead Nightmare Expansion. I loved that too.
 
I probably would have liked this game, had it actually worked on my PS3.

I managed to get into a half-loaded multi-player game, once, and that was all I ever saw besides the title screen and the loading screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top