Originally Posted by WorldExclusive
EA puts games on shelves instead of the arrogant "when it's ready" approach some devs take.
Some devs think their game will sell no matter what. Then after all the hype their game sucks balls.
There comes a time when a game has to be released or it will never get done.
BF2 was six years ago and BF3 was three years in development, should they have taken another year? Why? PC gamers are never satisfied, so just release the game already.
IMO I really doubt it's been in development for 3 years. More like in thoughts, talks and illustrations for the last 2 and then full cycle around late last year or January of this year.
EA gave them the green light, they decided to do BF3 or something because it was like a switch flipped around the first of the year. I doubt the actual map/modelling/artistic development took more than 1 year, tbh. They were probably even building the FB2 engine precursor for whatever they did next and only started to publicize and market the idea when BF3 was go.
In light of what you've said, I do think there is a sweet spot. When you account the complexity of BF3, the maps, engine, balancing maps, bugs, performance and try to keep it consistent with multiplayer and 64 possible players, 10 months to a year is really shaving it close to not being enough. Back around the first of the year they announced the release date of Oct or Nov, the only think I could do was was shriek. And we can see it in the game, there are things that just don't really mesh or look out of place.
Even DNF took 2.5 years from the decision to build it on Unreal 3.5 (of course they had a skeleton crew).Edited by pengs - 11/1/11 at 5:56pm