Um, more people making the game means more work done over a shorter time. More accomplished over a shorter time does mean that you are getting it done faster. I mean ya, have like 1000 people working on it would make it slow down a lot because of having to manage the employees. But most companies have like 50-200 people. I don't see how having more people can be "detrimental to the game", I mean you are spreading your opinion out further than with a small group, but that happens anyway. Secondly, if a game has a follower base like this, and all the concepts of this game, then I'm pretty damn sure it would make money. It would just be a hard game to make because of technical limitations. I mean, if this game looked like it was going to come out, or if it looked like it's not going to be another Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, if it does. Then I'm sure that most of the other games would have their followers running over here like lemmings off a cliff.
Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people not 100+ as he stated.
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Smaller teams are not preferred over larger ones. Teams would rather have a larger group of individuals that were specialized in each area then a small team that has to be generalized in all areas. For instance it is better to have 4-5 guys making the art for the game that are specialized in art then 4-5 guys doing the art, sound, and animations. You will get a better more polished product with the larger group then with the smaller one. So if you can afford it a larger team is preferred over a smaller one.
Um, more people making the game means more work done over a shorter time. More accomplished over a shorter time does mean that you are getting it done faster. I mean ya, have like 1000 people working on it would make it slow down a lot because of having to manage the employees. But most companies have like 50-200 people. I don't see how having more people can be "detrimental to the game", I mean you are spreading your opinion out further than with a small group, but that happens anyway. Secondly, if a game has a follower base like this, and all the concepts of this game, then I'm pretty damn sure it would make money. It would just be a hard game to make because of technical limitations. I mean, if this game looked like it was going to come out, or if it looked like it's not going to be another Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, if it does. Then I'm sure that most of the other games would have their followers running over here like lemmings off a cliff.
Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people not 100+ as he stated.
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Smaller teams are not preferred over larger ones. Teams would rather have a larger group of individuals that were specialized in each area then a small team that has to be generalized in all areas. For instance it is better to have 4-5 guys making the art for the game that are specialized in art then 4-5 guys doing the art, sound, and animations. You will get a better more polished product with the larger group then with the smaller one. So if you can afford it a larger team is preferred over a smaller one.
Those are usually what the teams consist of. Specialized people and not generalized in all areas but i dont know where you got that idea because i never said anything like that.
I think it depends here guys on team size. its not black and white
EA - they will toss 200+ people on a project to ship fast within 9 months and they will get an 80 metacritic (see Lord of the rings titles from EA not talking bout LOTRO)
Id software - small crack team that will hit 90+ metacritic. longer dev cycle and way less people
It is good to stay small and hire veterans that have diverse skill sets at least for prototyping. I'd take a small team of vets over a big huge zerg of 200+ people on a project. That way yer codebase stays small and tight. Everyone knows whats going in the codebase.
If you hire a zerg- well what EA discovered is that not only will u end up laying them off- u will ship a crapper + the codebase is a huge mess. if the programmer- just one stupid dev on the team, checks in something that breaks the game. Then EVERYONE is broken
next, tight shcedule will burn eveyrone out. Next thing we see, EA is getting sued!!!! See people have families and such we aint single and 20 yrs anymore in games industry. we're getting old, got wife and kids
it can go either way I guess. sure, you can have a big team. or spend more time wit a small team. IDeally? Find that sweet spot and contract our specialized Art Studios is what LOTRO, Cryptic/NCSoft, Darkfall, and others are doing....
Um, more people making the game means more work done over a shorter time. More accomplished over a shorter time does mean that you are getting it done faster. I mean ya, have like 1000 people working on it would make it slow down a lot because of having to manage the employees. But most companies have like 50-200 people. I don't see how having more people can be "detrimental to the game", I mean you are spreading your opinion out further than with a small group, but that happens anyway. Secondly, if a game has a follower base like this, and all the concepts of this game, then I'm pretty damn sure it would make money. It would just be a hard game to make because of technical limitations. I mean, if this game looked like it was going to come out, or if it looked like it's not going to be another Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, if it does. Then I'm sure that most of the other games would have their followers running over here like lemmings off a cliff.
Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people not 100+ as he stated.
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it." . So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol. This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself. I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Plain and simple its vaporware if you can't see that by now you got problems. Hell let's try to even give you the benefit of the doubt say it does come out they'll need a good 3-4 month closed beta cycle minimum to iron out bugs and a around a half a month to one month open beta that'd mean by around February at the earliest it could be released if that all more or less happened starting tomorrow which we all know isn't gonna happen. For the sake of argument though let's say it did the game would soon fold over and kill itself upon arrival much like shadowbane and others that have tried to replicate UO's glory days the fact of the matter is UO has survived primarily because it changed to be more like EQ, diablo, WoW, and other games. If UO had remained more or less stagnant and let it evolve around open pvp let it was until EA bought out and took over origin the game likely would have fizzled out just like shadow bane within a year or two. It was still growing during that time period, but it would've peaked and declined just as rapidly a large reason behind it's growth back then was simply because it was the only thing on the market initially for a long time and even by the EA buyout there were only 2 other games on the market at that time EQ and AC so there was little to no competition for them to compete with and anyone with a computer that wasn't capable of EQ or AC at the time had to default to UO. EQ in particular had steep system requirements to run well when it came out for quite some time. Anyways that's my take and as much as I like UO's infancy it likely would've pulled a shadow bane if hadn't made the changes it did.
This seems to be about the furthest from the truth. UO had a target audience for 2 years, it changed to be more like EQ, and almost doubled its client base, this is good, but it lost what kept most people around, 2 years later it was below the number of people playing then befor it changed to be more like EQ.. I'll explain WHY. Like myself, my girlfriend, and dozens of friends who QUIT playing, but still paid their SUB, because they had Houses, Castles, or Keeps, and didn't want to lose them incase UO fixed its mistake. After 2 years of paying for a game we didn't play we finaly cancled. KILLING a game doesn't happen over night, and trends take a long time to develop. IF EA opened a Classic server that used the rules that were used befor UO:R I know atleast 20-30 friends that would reinstall and be playing tomarrow. No doubt 100k+ people would play a classic style server. Thats not a HUGE amount of people, but compaired to how many play now... thats a lot.
Plain and simple its vaporware if you can't see that by now you got problems. Hell let's try to even give you the benefit of the doubt say it does come out they'll need a good 3-4 month closed beta cycle minimum to iron out bugs and a around a half a month to one month open beta that'd mean by around February at the earliest it could be released if that all more or less happened starting tomorrow which we all know isn't gonna happen. For the sake of argument though let's say it did the game would soon fold over and kill itself upon arrival much like shadowbane and others that have tried to replicate UO's glory days the fact of the matter is UO has survived primarily because it changed to be more like EQ, diablo, WoW, and other games. If UO had remained more or less stagnant and let it evolve around open pvp let it was until EA bought out and took over origin the game likely would have fizzled out just like shadow bane within a year or two. It was still growing during that time period, but it would've peaked and declined just as rapidly a large reason behind it's growth back then was simply because it was the only thing on the market initially for a long time and even by the EA buyout there were only 2 other games on the market at that time EQ and AC so there was little to no competition for them to compete with and anyone with a computer that wasn't capable of EQ or AC at the time had to default to UO. EQ in particular had steep system requirements to run well when it came out for quite some time. Anyways that's my take and as much as I like UO's infancy it likely would've pulled a shadow bane if hadn't made the changes it did.
This seems to be about the furthest from the truth. UO had a target audience for 2 years, it changed to be more like EQ, and almost doubled its client base, this is good, but it lost what kept most people around, 2 years later it was below the number of people playing then befor it changed to be more like EQ.. I'll explain WHY. Like myself, my girlfriend, and dozens of friends who QUIT playing, but still paid their SUB, because they had Houses, Castles, or Keeps, and didn't want to lose them incase UO fixed its mistake. After 2 years of paying for a game we didn't play we finaly cancled. KILLING a game doesn't happen over night, and trends take a long time to develop. IF EA opened a Classic server that used the rules that were used befor UO:R I know atleast 20-30 friends that would reinstall and be playing tomarrow. No doubt 100k+ people would play a classic style server. Thats not a HUGE amount of people, but compaired to how many play now... thats a lot.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
What? 50 - 24 = 26. 100 - 70 = 30. 30 - 26 = 4. What part are you missing? If you want to say that you can only compare it to 50 (my low guess, then I should be saying that you stated that a dev team is 12 people. You constantly try to warp what people are saying, and refuse to listen to their point. Which would mean 50 - 12 = 38, that's pretty far off too.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
Right, here it is again, refusing to listen to my point. I understand that not everyone is going to use a large development team, and that smaller is more efficient. None the less though, larger teams get more done. They are not necessarily detrimental to a game. If you give the team enough time, then the game will turn out fine. You may have more errors but you also have more people listening to errors.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I took nothing, nothing, out of context here. That is exactly what you said. This was, for the most part, the point of your post. I'm not just selecting certain spots in your post, this is what you said. This is the point you got across. You should read your own posts.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Well then, see what I wrote up above here. It should pretty much sum this up.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
What? 50 - 24 = 26. 100 - 70 = 30. 30 - 26 = 4. What part are you missing? If you want to say that you can only compare it to 50 (my low guess, then I should be saying that you stated that a dev team is 12 people. You constantly try to warp what people are saying, and refuse to listen to their point. Which would mean 50 - 12 = 38, that's pretty far off too.
you said ~50 was what the general area they are in and thats where i came up with it. Also wrong again i took that guy's lowest number he gave(which was 100+) which is closest and so taking the my number closest would be best.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
Right, here it is again, refusing to listen to my point. I understand that not everyone is going to use a large development team, and that smaller is more efficient. None the less though, larger teams get more done. They are not necessarily detrimental to a game. If you give the team enough time, then the game will turn out fine. You may have more errors but you also have more people listening to errors.
Sure they get more dont but do they do it well? Look at vajuras post for the point and realize the fastest isnt always the best. Also just so you know that writing crappy code IS detrimental to a game.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I took nothing, nothing, out of context here. That is exactly what you said. This was, for the most part, the point of your post. I'm not just selecting certain spots in your post, this is what you said. This is the point you got across. You should read your own posts.
No the point was that they followed the business model which was click point auto attack game not they mold themselves after every aspect of blizzard. You should really learn some reading comprehension.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Well then, see what I wrote up above here. It should pretty much sum this up.
Small teams are preferred when building a MMORPG or ANYTHING??????? What do you do? Just make up your own rules to fit your needs as you go along or something?
"50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate " Then I suggest you go back to school along with the darkfall devs because they'll soon be looking for new jobs. Do you know what it means when you have to constantly come up wth lame excuses for something? It means that what you're defending is pretty damn lame.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
Small teams are preferred when building a MMORPG or ANYTHING??????? What do you do? Just make up your own rules to fit your needs as you go along or something?
"50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate " Then I suggest you go back to school along with the darkfall devs because they'll soon be looking for new jobs. Do you know what it means when you have to constantly come up wth lame excuses for something? It means that what you're defending is pretty damn lame.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
That is quite possibly the most irrelevant/crazy thing I have ever read... " I never said anything" how's that for out of context?
Good on you gl0bunny, it's best to ignore him. He has continually managed to lack having a valid point. Don't worry about me though, I'm just really stuborn. Go on without me, I'll try to hold him off.
Small teams are preferred when building a MMORPG or ANYTHING??????? What do you do? Just make up your own rules to fit your needs as you go along or something?
"50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate " Then I suggest you go back to school along with the darkfall devs because they'll soon be looking for new jobs. Do you know what it means when you have to constantly come up wth lame excuses for something? It means that what you're defending is pretty damn lame.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
That is quite possibly the most irrelevant/crazy thing I have ever read... " I never said anything" how's that for out of context?
Good on you gl0bunny, it's best to ignore him. He has continually managed to lack having a valid point. Don't worry about me though, I'm just really stuborn. Go on without me, I'll try to hold him off.
Unfortuneatly your the one without any valid points. Since your saying that they should be able to build a house and a mansion in the same amount of time which is just plain ridicilous.
Small teams are preferred when building a MMORPG or ANYTHING??????? L-O-L What do you do? Just make up your own rules to fit your needs as you go along or something?
"50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate " Then I suggest you go back to school along with the darkfall devs because they'll soon be looking for new jobs. Do you know what it means when you have to constantly come up wth lame excuses for something? It means that what you're defending is pretty damn lame.
Wow -4 year dev not a ton of features but enough to keep some people happy tons of updates i suppose bigger team tho darkfall- 6-7 year dev with a merge and redoing of graphics and engine and getting all the features in they promised (which is way more than WoW could ever or will have ) smaller team so putting there man power on the game instead of posting updates all the time
So whats the problem? as far as ic an see having updates doesnt mean crap yes it would be nice but : )
So your proof that it isn't vaporware is simply because you say so???? You offer no proof, no facts just some silly statement you made up. Man your one piece of work.
BTW I hear DF beta will be accepting solo beta apps soon! Now if we could only figure out what soon is. See you at the end of the year I'll eat crow and apologise if I'm wrong. Will you be big enough to do so if its still not in closed beta then?
There are MANY facts on it and you can look through some past threads for them if you want.
Hmm Asheron's call released after 4 years with a smaller team then Darkfall and had a ton of features.
The fact remains that no matter how you try to spin it, them staying in development for so long is a negative and not a postive. Just like the fact that they had to get a loan to fund their game instead of investment in their game. Both of these aspects that DF fanboys try to use as proof are actually negatives that point to the game not releasing.
There is a reason why it is in development in so long than usual(and usual is 3-4 years). This game is not AC and its not any other game you can list. This takes what those other games did and takes it to the next level and so to call it an average game and throwing into that timeframe is just idiocy in its pure form. So tell me unless they want to go bankrupt(Which idk many companies that do) what are they going to repay it back?
Given all the sketchy circumstances of Darkfall over the years it seems very unlikely it would be released in a good state much like UO and SB thus be plagued with bugs and exploits. I think Darkfall has more potential to be in even rougher water than SB was let a lone UO's rocky start. That's just it's release shape let alone how quickly it could remedy big problems areas like far exceeding demand estimates as more importantly the companies ability to fix critical problems quickly enough that alone can easily ruin a game. UO was lucky in that it kinda had a get out of jail free card on it's hands since it was basically the first highly successful mmorpg on the market.
I'm not gonna argue about if UO would have gone down the same path as SB or not since it's all speculative, but it's easy to see how it might very well have since plain and simple it had many aggravated players at the time for many many reasons. I liked UO and I even stated that, but UO really isn't the point here Darkfall is and if it's even released which I have my doubts on it makes you wonder what shape it'll be in and how well it can keep the player community under control w/o imploding like SB's did.
Wow -4 year dev not a ton of features but enough to keep some people happy tons of updates i suppose bigger team tho darkfall- 6-7 year dev with a merge and redoing of graphics and engine and getting all the features in they promised (which is way more than WoW could ever or will have ) smaller team so putting there man power on the game instead of posting updates all the time
So whats the problem? as far as ic an see having updates doesnt mean crap yes it would be nice but : )
So your proof that it isn't vaporware is simply because you say so???? You offer no proof, no facts just some silly statement you made up. Man your one piece of work.
BTW I hear DF beta will be accepting solo beta apps soon! Now if we could only figure out what soon is. See you at the end of the year I'll eat crow and apologise if I'm wrong. Will you be big enough to do so if its still not in closed beta then?
There are MANY facts on it and you can look through some past threads for them if you want.
Hmm Asheron's call released after 4 years with a smaller team then Darkfall and had a ton of features.
The fact remains that no matter how you try to spin it, them staying in development for so long is a negative and not a postive. Just like the fact that they had to get a loan to fund their game instead of investment in their game. Both of these aspects that DF fanboys try to use as proof are actually negatives that point to the game not releasing.
There is a reason why it is in development in so long than usual(and usual is 3-4 years). This game is not AC and its not any other game you can list. This takes what those other games did and takes it to the next level and so to call it an average game and throwing into that timeframe is just idiocy in its pure form. So tell me unless they want to go bankrupt(Which idk many companies that do) what are they going to repay it back?
And the longer it's in development, the more games that come out with features that would have been the only reason for playing it. Not to mention that whatever tech they are using is basically outdated and bypassed by other tech every 2 years of development. If it ever comes out (which I honestly don't believe it will), it will not be anything more than average as far as the engine and graphics, and will more than likely be missing at least a third or more of the "features" it touts so loudly.
Personally, if I ran a game site, Darkfall would have had it's section and advertising removed long ago.
When it comes down to it 7yrs is too long, to be only in development. The audience they once had, from the beginning, could have gotten smaller for waiting so long. Whenever this game is released, it will have to be outstanding otherwise all the money the delelopers, were making during development, will be needed as they search for new jobs. Not trying to be mean, but that is the truth when something takes longer to make than projected.
When it comes down to it 7yrs is too long, to be only in development. The audience they once had, from the beginning, could have gotten smaller for waiting so long. Whenever this game is released, it will have to be outstanding otherwise all the money the delelopers, were making during development, will be needed as they search for new jobs. Not trying to be mean, but that is the truth when something takes longer to make than projected.
Aventurine hired Razorwax and just about tripled their dev team in november 2002. So they started up pretty much up the same time as Funcom's AoC. In development, there are three things you want. High quality, fast development and cheap. The problem is that you only can choose two. If DF is going for high quality, cheap...that is fine for me.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
I found out about this game about 5 years ago, and thought it was cool then, and still think its cool now. Of course its the ideas that I think are cool, and whether or not they can pull of what they say they are going to. If you look at Dark and Light, that game promised a lot, but didnt pull through. So the fact that these guys are taking longer, actually shows that they are really making sure they deliver. If this game turns out how they are saying it will, then in my opinion, it will be the best game since Ultima Online.
Wow -4 year dev not a ton of features but enough to keep some people happy tons of updates i suppose bigger team tho darkfall- 6-7 year dev with a merge and redoing of graphics and engine and getting all the features in they promised (which is way more than WoW could ever or will have ) smaller team so putting there man power on the game instead of posting updates all the time
So whats the problem? as far as ic an see having updates doesnt mean crap yes it would be nice but : )
Not a problem i think, a game takes the time it needs to be ready.
Comments
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Smaller teams are not preferred over larger ones. Teams would rather have a larger group of individuals that were specialized in each area then a small team that has to be generalized in all areas. For instance it is better to have 4-5 guys making the art for the game that are specialized in art then 4-5 guys doing the art, sound, and animations. You will get a better more polished product with the larger group then with the smaller one. So if you can afford it a larger team is preferred over a smaller one.
War Beta Tester
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Smaller teams are not preferred over larger ones. Teams would rather have a larger group of individuals that were specialized in each area then a small team that has to be generalized in all areas. For instance it is better to have 4-5 guys making the art for the game that are specialized in art then 4-5 guys doing the art, sound, and animations. You will get a better more polished product with the larger group then with the smaller one. So if you can afford it a larger team is preferred over a smaller one.
Those are usually what the teams consist of. Specialized people and not generalized in all areas but i dont know where you got that idea because i never said anything like that.
I think it depends here guys on team size. its not black and white
EA - they will toss 200+ people on a project to ship fast within 9 months and they will get an 80 metacritic (see Lord of the rings titles from EA not talking bout LOTRO)
Id software - small crack team that will hit 90+ metacritic. longer dev cycle and way less people
It is good to stay small and hire veterans that have diverse skill sets at least for prototyping. I'd take a small team of vets over a big huge zerg of 200+ people on a project. That way yer codebase stays small and tight. Everyone knows whats going in the codebase.
If you hire a zerg- well what EA discovered is that not only will u end up laying them off- u will ship a crapper + the codebase is a huge mess. if the programmer- just one stupid dev on the team, checks in something that breaks the game. Then EVERYONE is broken
next, tight shcedule will burn eveyrone out. Next thing we see, EA is getting sued!!!! See people have families and such we aint single and 20 yrs anymore in games industry. we're getting old, got wife and kids
it can go either way I guess. sure, you can have a big team. or spend more time wit a small team. IDeally? Find that sweet spot and contract our specialized Art Studios is what LOTRO, Cryptic/NCSoft, Darkfall, and others are doing....
You have to look at it through i business perspective which is not the same as a player perspective. Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model. Businesses dont like to risk money and a game like DF is a risk no matter how fun it may be.
The numbers in my above quote are actually really quite off. But 12-24 is off pretty bad too. WoW followed the 70~ model. Back when they were making the game, when asked about how many people were working on it they said that they had about 70 people working on it so it was a pretty big team. WoW got precisely what they were going for too. I can safely assume that there are about 50 people working on WAR/AoC. PotBS is a smaller company but I would say that there pulling 30-40 people working on it.
Yet none of those numbers are in the 100+ range that he was talking about.
What's your point? He got a number wrong. I said up to 200 which was wrong. You said 12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers.
It is close and there is still the point that smaller teams are usually wanted than huge teams.
Umm, no they aren't, see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it. 12-24 isn't much closer to 40-70 than 100+ is. You were 16 off and he was 30. Leaving a difference of 14 which is not far off at all on this scale.
That doenst take away that the fact that smaller groups are preferred over large ones.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it." . So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol. This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself. I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Small teams are preferred when building a MMORPG or ANYTHING???????
L-O-L
What do you do? Just make up your own rules to fit your needs as you go along or something?
"50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate "
Then I suggest you go back to school along with the darkfall devs because they'll soon be looking for new jobs.
Do you know what it means when you have to constantly come up wth lame excuses for something?
It means that what you're defending is pretty damn lame.
This seems to be about the furthest from the truth. UO had a target audience for 2 years, it changed to be more like EQ, and almost doubled its client base, this is good, but it lost what kept most people around, 2 years later it was below the number of people playing then befor it changed to be more like EQ.. I'll explain WHY. Like myself, my girlfriend, and dozens of friends who QUIT playing, but still paid their SUB, because they had Houses, Castles, or Keeps, and didn't want to lose them incase UO fixed its mistake. After 2 years of paying for a game we didn't play we finaly cancled. KILLING a game doesn't happen over night, and trends take a long time to develop. IF EA opened a Classic server that used the rules that were used befor UO:R I know atleast 20-30 friends that would reinstall and be playing tomarrow. No doubt 100k+ people would play a classic style server. Thats not a HUGE amount of people, but compaired to how many play now... thats a lot.
This seems to be about the furthest from the truth. UO had a target audience for 2 years, it changed to be more like EQ, and almost doubled its client base, this is good, but it lost what kept most people around, 2 years later it was below the number of people playing then befor it changed to be more like EQ.. I'll explain WHY. Like myself, my girlfriend, and dozens of friends who QUIT playing, but still paid their SUB, because they had Houses, Castles, or Keeps, and didn't want to lose them incase UO fixed its mistake. After 2 years of paying for a game we didn't play we finaly cancled. KILLING a game doesn't happen over night, and trends take a long time to develop. IF EA opened a Classic server that used the rules that were used befor UO:R I know atleast 20-30 friends that would reinstall and be playing tomarrow. No doubt 100k+ people would play a classic style server. Thats not a HUGE amount of people, but compaired to how many play now... thats a lot.
I for one would totally play on a classic server!
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
What? 50 - 24 = 26. 100 - 70 = 30. 30 - 26 = 4. What part are you missing? If you want to say that you can only compare it to 50 (my low guess, then I should be saying that you stated that a dev team is 12 people. You constantly try to warp what people are saying, and refuse to listen to their point. Which would mean 50 - 12 = 38, that's pretty far off too.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
Right, here it is again, refusing to listen to my point. I understand that not everyone is going to use a large development team, and that smaller is more efficient. None the less though, larger teams get more done. They are not necessarily detrimental to a game. If you give the team enough time, then the game will turn out fine. You may have more errors but you also have more people listening to errors.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I took nothing, nothing, out of context here. That is exactly what you said. This was, for the most part, the point of your post. I'm not just selecting certain spots in your post, this is what you said. This is the point you got across. You should read your own posts.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Well then, see what I wrote up above here. It should pretty much sum this up.
Yes, actually yes it does. As I stated "see how pretty much every MMO on the most hyped and highest rated list on this website have like ~50 people working on it."
Perhaps i was a little off but NONE of those numbers fall into the category of 100+. 50ish is not really that much more from 24 which was my estimate but it is 50 people away from his estimate.
What? 50 - 24 = 26. 100 - 70 = 30. 30 - 26 = 4. What part are you missing? If you want to say that you can only compare it to 50 (my low guess, then I should be saying that you stated that a dev team is 12 people. You constantly try to warp what people are saying, and refuse to listen to their point. Which would mean 50 - 12 = 38, that's pretty far off too.
you said ~50 was what the general area they are in and thats where i came up with it. Also wrong again i took that guy's lowest number he gave(which was 100+) which is closest and so taking the my number closest would be best.
. So... it seems to me that if almost all of those teams are using ~50 people then the larger teams are preferred. You have got to stop only reading specific parts of the posts before you respond. Because again as I stated "12-24 which is only right for small companies or large groups of indie developers." bigger companies make the most successful MMOs, small companies only use small teams because that's what they can afford and indie developer games have a tendency to flop like an opera on American Idol.
It doesnt take away that the general consensus is that smaller teams are more efficiant. What you dont seem to understand is that not everyone is going to follow that model but having 100+ people AS HE STATED(NOT 70 NOT ~50) can be detrimental.
Right, here it is again, refusing to listen to my point. I understand that not everyone is going to use a large development team, and that smaller is more efficient. None the less though, larger teams get more done. They are not necessarily detrimental to a game. If you give the team enough time, then the game will turn out fine. You may have more errors but you also have more people listening to errors.
Sure they get more dont but do they do it well? Look at vajuras post for the point and realize the fastest isnt always the best. Also just so you know that writing crappy code IS detrimental to a game.
This time like you said "Businesses like to follow a model that is succesful and the since the most successful one was WoW they followed its model." and then you try to say that they prefer smaller teams despite you saying " Take a look around and you'll soon find that many developing teams like to keep it between dozen and two dozen people" despite this "WoW followed the 70~ model.". You are contradicting yourself.
Dont take what i say out of context. They follow WoW's game play because thats what makes money they dont make themselves exactly like Blizzard.
I took nothing, nothing, out of context here. That is exactly what you said. This was, for the most part, the point of your post. I'm not just selecting certain spots in your post, this is what you said. This is the point you got across. You should read your own posts.
No the point was that they followed the business model which was click point auto attack game not they mold themselves after every aspect of blizzard. You should really learn some reading comprehension.
I mean, I know you have a tendency to not get along with anyone here (even arguing with people who are agreeing with you) but arguing with yourself?
No i didnt but you just took what i said out of context and tried to make it look like something it wasnt.
Well then, see what I wrote up above here. It should pretty much sum this up.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
That is quite possibly the most irrelevant/crazy thing I have ever read... " I never said anything" how's that for out of context?Good on you gl0bunny, it's best to ignore him. He has continually managed to lack having a valid point. Don't worry about me though, I'm just really stuborn. Go on without me, I'll try to hold him off.
I see that your still as cluless as ever. I never said anything and yes they are look it up.
That is quite possibly the most irrelevant/crazy thing I have ever read... " I never said anything" how's that for out of context?Good on you gl0bunny, it's best to ignore him. He has continually managed to lack having a valid point. Don't worry about me though, I'm just really stuborn. Go on without me, I'll try to hold him off.
Unfortuneatly your the one without any valid points. Since your saying that they should be able to build a house and a mansion in the same amount of time which is just plain ridicilous.
game publishers employ small teams all the time.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/data/469881.html
see how the core team that worked on DOOM 3 is really small? please exclude the Activision people like QA Team and producers
Darkfall can very well be vaporware but many small teams ship games. less people, more royalties.
to bad its not XD
Doom 3 is not a mmorpg. A MMO is a completely different beast. No one in their right frame of mind would actually WANT a small team to biuld a mmorpg.
and you know this how stop blowing smoke out your butt
BTW I hear DF beta will be accepting solo beta apps soon! Now if we could only figure out what soon is. See you at the end of the year I'll eat crow and apologise if I'm wrong. Will you be big enough to do so if its still not in closed beta then?
There are MANY facts on it and you can look through some past threads for them if you want.
Hmm Asheron's call released after 4 years with a smaller team then Darkfall and had a ton of features.The fact remains that no matter how you try to spin it, them staying in development for so long is a negative and not a postive. Just like the fact that they had to get a loan to fund their game instead of investment in their game. Both of these aspects that DF fanboys try to use as proof are actually negatives that point to the game not releasing.
There is a reason why it is in development in so long than usual(and usual is 3-4 years). This game is not AC and its not any other game you can list. This takes what those other games did and takes it to the next level and so to call it an average game and throwing into that timeframe is just idiocy in its pure form. So tell me unless they want to go bankrupt(Which idk many companies that do) what are they going to repay it back?
Given all the sketchy circumstances of Darkfall over the years it seems very unlikely it would be released in a good state much like UO and SB thus be plagued with bugs and exploits. I think Darkfall has more potential to be in even rougher water than SB was let a lone UO's rocky start. That's just it's release shape let alone how quickly it could remedy big problems areas like far exceeding demand estimates as more importantly the companies ability to fix critical problems quickly enough that alone can easily ruin a game. UO was lucky in that it kinda had a get out of jail free card on it's hands since it was basically the first highly successful mmorpg on the market.
I'm not gonna argue about if UO would have gone down the same path as SB or not since it's all speculative, but it's easy to see how it might very well have since plain and simple it had many aggravated players at the time for many many reasons. I liked UO and I even stated that, but UO really isn't the point here Darkfall is and if it's even released which I have my doubts on it makes you wonder what shape it'll be in and how well it can keep the player community under control w/o imploding like SB's did.
BTW I hear DF beta will be accepting solo beta apps soon! Now if we could only figure out what soon is. See you at the end of the year I'll eat crow and apologise if I'm wrong. Will you be big enough to do so if its still not in closed beta then?
There are MANY facts on it and you can look through some past threads for them if you want.
Hmm Asheron's call released after 4 years with a smaller team then Darkfall and had a ton of features.The fact remains that no matter how you try to spin it, them staying in development for so long is a negative and not a postive. Just like the fact that they had to get a loan to fund their game instead of investment in their game. Both of these aspects that DF fanboys try to use as proof are actually negatives that point to the game not releasing.
And the longer it's in development, the more games that come out with features that would have been the only reason for playing it. Not to mention that whatever tech they are using is basically outdated and bypassed by other tech every 2 years of development. If it ever comes out (which I honestly don't believe it will), it will not be anything more than average as far as the engine and graphics, and will more than likely be missing at least a third or more of the "features" it touts so loudly.There is a reason why it is in development in so long than usual(and usual is 3-4 years). This game is not AC and its not any other game you can list. This takes what those other games did and takes it to the next level and so to call it an average game and throwing into that timeframe is just idiocy in its pure form. So tell me unless they want to go bankrupt(Which idk many companies that do) what are they going to repay it back?
Personally, if I ran a game site, Darkfall would have had it's section and advertising removed long ago.
When it comes down to it 7yrs is too long, to be only in development. The audience they once had, from the beginning, could have gotten smaller for waiting so long. Whenever this game is released, it will have to be outstanding otherwise all the money the delelopers, were making during development, will be needed as they search for new jobs. Not trying to be mean, but that is the truth when something takes longer to make than projected.
Aventurine hired Razorwax and just about tripled their dev team in november 2002. So they started up pretty much up the same time as Funcom's AoC. In development, there are three things you want. High quality, fast development and cheap. The problem is that you only can choose two. If DF is going for high quality, cheap...that is fine for me.
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
I found out about this game about 5 years ago, and thought it was cool then, and still think its cool now. Of course its the ideas that I think are cool, and whether or not they can pull of what they say they are going to. If you look at Dark and Light, that game promised a lot, but didnt pull through. So the fact that these guys are taking longer, actually shows that they are really making sure they deliver. If this game turns out how they are saying it will, then in my opinion, it will be the best game since Ultima Online.
Good Luck DF devs
Not a problem i think, a game takes the time it needs to be ready.
List of SOE lies
it' s very simple:
small team
big game
Indy developer
Games take time to make
I'm personally keeping my fingers crossed. To hell with the trolls and the corporate shills even if they do provide all the entertainment around here