Distributed development experiences
Author
I'm interested in hearing your experiences with distributed game development. What I mean by that, is geographically distributed teams working on a project using web or server based tools and a project leader for coordination. Has anyone participated in such a project? Was it successful or a flaming disaster? Why?
Finally, do you think it would be possible to create an AAA title using distributed development on speculation, if a large number of participants were engaged, each given only a very small piece of the project, and all of these parts were carefully planned and coordinated by a project management team?
"lensart" wrote:
>do you think it would be possible to create an AAA title using distributed development on speculation
No, I don't. AAA quality, on the scale implied by the term "AAA title," cannot be gotten without payment. People who can turn out the amount and quality of programming and assets and management required do not work on spec.
>do you think it would be possible to create an AAA title using distributed development on speculation
No, I don't. AAA quality, on the scale implied by the term "AAA title," cannot be gotten without payment. People who can turn out the amount and quality of programming and assets and management required do not work on spec.
Author
Quote:Original post by tsloper
"lensart" wrote:
>do you think it would be possible to create an AAA title using distributed development on speculation
No, I don't. AAA quality, on the scale implied by the term "AAA title," cannot be gotten without payment. People who can turn out the amount and quality of programming and assets and management required do not work on spec.
Actually, the question was whether quality programmers would participate 'if a large number of participants were engaged, each given only a very small piece of the project.' I agree that most people don't do spec these days. I know that I don't. But given a well managed project where my part was small and well defined, I might.
The idea is to minimize each individual's amount of programming work by leveraging against a much larger degree of project managment. While I wouldn't want to be accused of abusing the mythical man month, with very good planning it may be possible to massively distribute the workload, allowing the type of people who can turn out high quality work to do much less of it and possibly then be attracted to work spec. That given, the real question becomes whether or not an AAA title could be divided into very small, well defined work packages and managed accordingly.
I too have doubts. My experience working on AAA titles is one of iteration:
1) Talk with design and implement a first pass of a feature
2) Design plays with the feature, makes design changes, implement next pass of the system
3) Often completely scrap the idea and start fresh.
I'm not sure that certain tasks can be well quantized. At the very least you'd need a "lead" for each game discipline: physics, graphics, AI, sound, etc. They would work out the broad strokes of the system and create the smaller parallelizable task list.
I'm just not sure how iteration would work here.
I've worked on a team where we outsourced levels to people in far off lands; we "met" via video conference 1x daily and were on the phone and email all the time. Just the disconnect between the two teams there made those levels a horrible disaster. And that was with 2 groups; what you're talking about is something like 200 groups that don't really communicate through any high-bandwidth channel.
-me
1) Talk with design and implement a first pass of a feature
2) Design plays with the feature, makes design changes, implement next pass of the system
3) Often completely scrap the idea and start fresh.
I'm not sure that certain tasks can be well quantized. At the very least you'd need a "lead" for each game discipline: physics, graphics, AI, sound, etc. They would work out the broad strokes of the system and create the smaller parallelizable task list.
I'm just not sure how iteration would work here.
I've worked on a team where we outsourced levels to people in far off lands; we "met" via video conference 1x daily and were on the phone and email all the time. Just the disconnect between the two teams there made those levels a horrible disaster. And that was with 2 groups; what you're talking about is something like 200 groups that don't really communicate through any high-bandwidth channel.
-me
Quote:Original post by lensartI am with Tom. Such a project would fail. Firstly because developers with the necessary skill to do triple A games would be off getting paid and working on a normal project (or doing their own indie titles like Introversion.)
Actually, the question was whether quality programmers would participate 'if a large number of participants were engaged, each given only a very small piece of the project.' I agree that most people don't do spec these days. I know that I don't. But given a well managed project where my part was small and well defined, I might.
Secondly because the project would collapse under the strain of the communication overhead. Every person you add to a project adds a communications cost. Team members have more people to communicate with so they spend more time communicating and less developing. They are not only less efficient because of the wasted time but will make more mistakes as a result of communications failures. lastly you also have problems whenever you integrate separate bits of code and the more programmers you have the more of these problems....
Then, as if that wasn't enough, the really detailed tuning of a high class game would be made far far harder with a large number of people who were not in the same location so, even without all the problems above the quality still suffers.
No, I cannot imagine such a thing.
Having artists and engineers on different floors is a pain. It's hard just having the test teams, a few designers and parts of management at a different site.
Having no central location for discussions, meetings, and natural synergy required for the project seems like yet another recipe for disaster.
Having artists and engineers on different floors is a pain. It's hard just having the test teams, a few designers and parts of management at a different site.
Having no central location for discussions, meetings, and natural synergy required for the project seems like yet another recipe for disaster.
I, too, don't see this as having an potential for success.
The idea that you can break something on the scale of a AAA title up into tiny little pieces and give each one to a programmer makes too many assumptions -- it assumes, for example, that the mythical project management team will be correct the first time, which won't happen, and therefore you'll be bogged down in communications between the management and the programmer.
Not to mention (in addition to everything else everybody's said) that working in that kind of unchallenging isolation wouldn't appeal to very many top-quality developers (especially if they're not being paid), and you need top-quality developers to make top-quality products.
Et cetera.
The idea that you can break something on the scale of a AAA title up into tiny little pieces and give each one to a programmer makes too many assumptions -- it assumes, for example, that the mythical project management team will be correct the first time, which won't happen, and therefore you'll be bogged down in communications between the management and the programmer.
Not to mention (in addition to everything else everybody's said) that working in that kind of unchallenging isolation wouldn't appeal to very many top-quality developers (especially if they're not being paid), and you need top-quality developers to make top-quality products.
Et cetera.
Quote:Original post by lensart
Actually, the question was whether quality programmers would participate 'if a large number of participants were engaged, each given only a very small piece of the project.' ... the real question becomes whether or not an AAA title could be divided into very small, well defined work packages and managed accordingly.
I stand by my answer.
Even if you manage to get 100 people, each putting in only 10 hours, to build a AAA-quality game, the whole thing will crash and burn during QA. "That's not my bug, and I don't know whose bug it is." It would be a nightmare to sort out once that happens.
Or "Sorry, but I've taken a job, and my new employer won't permit my doing any more work on this." With 100 people, 100 different problems will result.
Original post by lensart
I'm interested in hearing your experiences with distributed game development. What I mean by that, is geographically distributed teams working on a project using web or server based tools and a project leader for coordination. Has anyone participated in such a project? Was it successful or a flaming disaster? Why? quote]
I only hear about B title MOMRPG project created by 5 people.Quote:Original post by lensartAAA title - imposible!
Finally, do you think it would be possible to create an AAA title using distributed development on speculation, if a large number of participants were engaged, each given only a very small piece of the project, and all of these parts were carefully planned and coordinated by a project management team?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
