0r0d

Members
  • Content count

    364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1964 Excellent

2 Followers

About 0r0d

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Programming
  1. Yup, and in some really pathological cases it can take much more. Duke Nukem Forever is the poster child, having been in development for 15 years!
  2. Well, there's a wide variance in development time. Many factors come into play such as: do you have an engine or are you developing the engine alongside the game, is it a sequel to a previous game, what's the scope of the game and how many developers do you have on it, etc. In general I'd say that for a large AAA game, if it's a sequel like the Call of Duty games where you're constantly developing another one based on previous tech and you have an existing experienced team, then the development time is around 2 years. If you're developing a brand new IP from scratch with an existing engine, it can take around 3 to 5 years. If you're developing the tech alongside the game, then you're looking at 4+ years. If you just want a single number that's around the average dev time for a big AAA game, I'd say it's around 5 years.
  3. Studios will look for people with experience similar to the job they're hiring for. So if a studio is working on AAA games, then of course AAA experience will be much better than small indie experience.
  4. What Program should i use

    Do you know how to program? What kinds of games do you want to make?
  5. Yes or No possibly Maybe Seriously, you've given us absolutely nothing to base an answer on. So you can pick whichever of the above two you prefer.
  6. The million monkeys approach.

    Yup. I'm sure we all know what a pain it is when you get a new person into a team and you have to train them. It's a time sink even when that person is an experienced developer. Now imagine thousands of inexperienced people coming in. Even if I had a team of 100 pros to deal with it, they'd spend all their time dealing with the novices and trying to get them up to speed. But even after they're all up to speed, they're still novices and will be doing more damage than good. I'll take a team of 10 good, experienced developers over 100,000 novices any day. With 10 good people I can have a good (although small) game in a year. With that many novices, I doubt you will ever ship a decent project... no matter how many years you allow.
  7. The million monkeys approach.

    Even if all those amateurs collectively have the same knowledge/experience (or more so) as the professional developers, the problem is that they would just get in each others' way. Even if they could agree on a leadership structure, with one person having a vision for the code architecture and then subdividing tasks and responsibilities, how do you effectively divide things into that many programmers? You cant really. And if you did, keeping all of them organized would be full time jobs for a lot of them, and the ones working under that structure would probably quickly become disillusioned and unhappy with what they're working on... especially since a significant chunk of time would be spent dealing with shit that others broke, or arguing with your immediate supervisor because you want to implement your small sub-system in a way that conflicts with the way 10 other guys are implementing their different small sub-systems that interact with your sub-system... oh and you're still waiting for dependencies from 10 other guys who havent done their work yet, and another 10 guys are pissed at you because YOU havent finished your work that they're waiting on. And also btw a few hundred designers just decided that the game design should radically change, and how there's a civil war among the designers to see which group wins. As far as the artists... well the tools have been broken for a couple of weeks, so... they're all just getting high. It's just a total nightmare.
  8. The million monkeys approach.

    If the question is can that many amateurs create something similar to a modern AAA game, then I'd say the answer is NO. It's possible that they might be able to create "a game" that might also be a very good game, but it wont be the same type of game that we now consider a AAA game. It might be something more amorphous, it might be a type of game that doesnt even exist yet. But, the types of games we make now rely heavily on a person or small group who has a vision and can both execute on that vision as well as successfully guide the team to execute on it. This is why some teams of expert developers with good ideas for a game succeed and other fail. It's not the numbers or skill levels or amount of funding. It's just hard to have a good idea and carry that to fruition, and having more "cooks in the kitchen" doesnt help. On the code side, having possibly thousands of programmers all working on the same engine, tools, and game code sounds like a freakin' nightmare.
  9. How to learn from Quake source code

    I think you're asking for a lot of frustration and wasted time. Looking through the code out of curiosity to see how they did things is perfectly fine, but things were different then and a lot of the things they did dont make sense now. You will be spending a lot of time looking through arcane code that does stuff you cant figure out, and is poorly documented, and for what? What you probably want to know are things like did they use software rendering, and if so how does that work. What spatial partitioning did they use, and how did those work? You can get this type of information better by just asking people around here. Looking through the code will tell you how they implemented certain things, but it's not the first place I'd look to get ideas of how those games were put together. This is like looking at a soup and trying to figure out how the cook made it. Good luck figuring it out. And having a magnifying glass will give you some more clues, but it still wont tel you how the soup was made... just what ingredients are in it. You're better off reading a cookbook about soups.
  10. How to learn from Quake source code

    Do you want to look at the Quake code just out of curiosity, or do you think it will help you learn C++? Because if your goal is to learn C++, that's the wrong place to look. You're better off getting a good C++ book, doing a bunch of small C++ projects, and going to places like StackOverflow to ask questions and learn new things. Looking through big, complicated codebases wont help you that much, especially not one that's mostly C and not C++.
  11. Is Phil Fish a Jerk?

    I'm sure they're all had to deal with different things, and different people react differently. So one person's reactions cant be used as a yardstick for another person's reactions to different situations that we dont know anything about. In any case, he didnt say anything other than his opinions about some games and maybe some comments about how people were treating him. I really dont even care what he said. It just bothers me that people get so upset over a person not liking a thing and publicly saying so, to the point that we need to waste time arguing over it in a forum thread.
  12. Physics for strategy games

    You can look into using something like Bullet Physics, in which case you can give each soldier a rigid body like a sphere and some basic physical parameters like mass. You can then move them by giving them forces, impulses, or by directly setting the velocity. The rigid body object will contain the transform you need to render the soldier, determine AI behavior, etc. You just let Bullet do the physics calculations.
  13. Game Idea

    I just think of a game that I'd like to play. Sometimes it's just an existing game that I like, and then I think of what elements would make it more fun or more interesting... something that hasnt been done before. If you cant think of ideas like that, then you can try to do different exercises to brainstorm. For example: try taking two different game mechanics and mash them together. Or take an existing game and remove some key element, and then consider how to make a fun game with that limitation. Any time you have a starting idea and then impose limitations, you could end up with something new and different. You just have to not be afraid to think of stuff that will be totally absurd. There's a thin line between something that's not fun and a total failure, and something that's a huge million-selling hit.
  14. Is Phil Fish a Jerk?

    Maybe I missed something, but I just remember him saying that Japanese games suck. How is that appalling? I mean, it's just the guy's opinion. People need to really stop getting their panties in a bunch every time someone expresses an opinion.