WC writes: Everyone ready for a self-indulgent rant? Because I bought this soapbox in from the car, and they only let you hire out these megaphones for the day. So, ready? Excellent. Testing. Testing. Is this coming across self-righteous enough up the back there? Can you hear me being all judgemental? Okay. Here goes.
The story in part 3 of Sony Interactive Entertainment and Naughty Dog's The Last of Us series may explore a "congregation of immune people."
Former Naughty Dog artist Gabriel Betancourt explains why the "sweet spot" for game teams is under 200 people and how AAA "factories" kill creativity.
There’s definitely some truth to this. When teams get too large, coordination starts to outweigh creativity—layers of approval, risk aversion, and tight deadlines can turn bold ideas into “safe” ones. Keeping a team under ~200 people sounds ideal for maintaining clear communication and a shared vision. That said, massive AAA projects also come with huge technical demands and expectations, so scaling up isn’t always avoidable. The real challenge is figuring out how to keep that small-team creativity alive inside big studio structures.
More than that, it's logistically untenable. Inevitably, when teams get too large, how do you keep tabs on accountability? I suspect this massive team size is a consequence of the perfectionism streak Naughty Dog has.
I wish we could have so many people working on something and it turns out great because I'm all for collaboration in spirit - the problem is too many people as part of the larger team and smaller units. Suppose for example that you have too many people in the art department; you will very often come up against fiercely competing visions for how things should look. That competitive vision will cause friction between team members, team doesn't work as a unit, the back and forth can further delay parts that the other departments are waiting for, etc etc.
A 200-person team says, to me, that we need to scale back game development. Even if it means we go back to PS2 era costs and scale, why not? Those games are still great fun, the budgets were in check, and you could literally break the 200-man team into like 10 20-man teams working on different projects.
The Last of Us Part I PS5 review covering visuals, combat feel, accessibility, performance modes, and whether it is really worth the asking price of $69.99.
Roger Ebert is really going to lose face over these comments.
Dead > horse
To each his own. If Roger doesn't think games are art, that's his loss. However, the only reason I'd want him to change his mind is because many movie watchers trust his word. I'd hate to see his views on gaming spread to anyone else. It's rather insulting to games to think they they can't compete in the same league as movies and music. Games are as much an expression of the developer as music is for the artist. Developer == Artist.
Can't trust anyone who puts more stock into their opinion on everything rather than noticing they need to eat some carrots and do a sit up.
From Glen Beck to Roger Ebert; all the fatties seem to have an opinion about everything, and in their mind's, they're never wrong. Am I right?
Video games are really just like any other medium. They can be art, but that doesn't mean they are. Most of them are entertainment.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is some great entertainment in books, movies, music, and video games. Art and entertainment are just two different things.
Books: 1984, The Great Gatsby, LOTR = art. Necroscope, Harry Potter, Twilight = entertainment.
Movies: American Beauty, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction = art. Anything directed by Michael Bay = entertainment.
Music: Supergrass, Nine Inch Nails, Lacuna Coil = art. Most top 40 radio = entertainment. Tool and Lady Gaga = pretentious nonsense.
Video games: MGS, Journey, Limbo = art. CoD, GTA, Assassin's Creed = entertainment. Duke Nukem, Blackwater = crap.