Developers hit certain points in development and cant make certain things work or they get feature creeped into oblivion and they have to cut things and rush a final product to meet the deadline
For "some reason" lol? Are you ignorant? Games and computer hardware have advanced an insane amount. Hardware is more complex and diverse so optimization alone takes up huge amounts of dev time, graphics are also way more advanced, and games these days have to be bigger and more complex than what was released in the past in order to gain attention. This is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever read
It is more advanced in the sense that they're giving individual blades of grass dynamic lighting. It's nor more advanced in that they're optimizing superflerous stuff out of their code.
I understand what you're trying to say, even if your tone is off, but taking 15 years to put stuff in games that I don't care about MAYBE can be called technical advancement, but it's not a stand in for better game development.
My tone isn't off, the original commenter and now you are ignorant so that's how you are spoken to lol. Nobody asked if you want grass to look better, the average person does and publicly traded companies do what the most people want to make more money simple as. Games are bigger and more complex, so they require more people, resources, and money to produce and so that takes time.
But they don't have to be. Star Wars Galactic Racer is a good recent example. That game reportedly took 3.5 years to complete. Its a pretty simple arcade racer but the real innovation is in it's crafting of pretty robust roguelike systems for the main campaign.
It feels new and exciting on a gameplay front instead of being the biggest open world racing game or simulating real-time weather events.
The ever-growing market for indie games is also proof that gamers will play games that are fun or unique without requiring cutting edge graphics or whatever.
Are you comparing what you yourself call a simple racing game to an RPG that's meant to have multiple branching paths, hundreds of voiced characters with potentially as many voice actors delivering thousands upon thousands of lines, all on top of what people will expect to be a balanced and robust combat system? I don't even understand why you wrote this comment lol what.. could your point possibly have been?
Bigger games will take more time to make than smaller games, exponentially more time depending on the work involved. I'm sorry you had to learn that in this way
All 3 original series Mass Effect games were developed within 2 years of each other. Despite some really dated gameplay, these games remain some of the most popular and critically acclaimed games that Bioware has ever made. Their appeal, at least to me, is in their consistent writing and excellent world building.
I think that if Bioware had made a new Mass Effect game with similar scope to one of the original trilogy games, and with the same tight focus on writing and world building, it would have been a hit. Even if the graphics weren't that much better than what they were able to put together for the Legendary Eddition. It only took them 2 years to do that for the original games. I'd even give them 4 years to account for "new technology".
I don't see why they need 6-10 years to make a Mass Effect game. That's a choice they made, not a requirement.
•
u/HC-Sama-7511 8h ago
Because it takes 15 years to make games now for some reason.