D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm not sure this is necessarily a sure thing. There are just too many games being released for all good games to get the attention they may deserve. Marketing for bad games can drown out good games.
Crunch time at Naughty Dog.
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
I'm not sure this is necessarily a sure thing. There are just too many games being released for all good games to get the attention they may deserve. Marketing for bad games can drown out good games.
If they final stretch crunch every time then it's predictable, it adds a predictable amount of time. It's not magic.
They could commit to the marketing, duplication of media, boxing and distribution with those hours to spare instead, the extra budget wouldn't be relevant in the total budget of a AAA title. If by doing so they would use those hours less efficiently and not finish in the planned time that proves the hours are not fungible and they need the gun to your head.
Which brings me to the gimp suits and the whips, it just seems healthier.
I think good marketing will always improve sales even on strong brands. Spider-Man definitely sold better with all it's marketing than if it had been silently released.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Again, I think much of the issue comes down to the nature of the creative process, the absolute scale and complexity of AAA game development and that element of human nature that causes us to work at a fairly pedestrian pace until there is a need to crank it - and the catalyst for this is generally the imminent looming deadline. Naughty Dog's games typically miss their initial release schedule, sometimes they get bumped a few times.
At some point the publisher just has to turn off the money pipe. Sometimes it's not about money, plenty of people stay at a company for one project and move on. If as a transient employee you plan to be on a new project shortly after your current one was planning to ship, you may not be able to stay, you need to be gone, you may need to move across country or move to another country entirely.
If that's possible for everybody - if there is budget for it. But again, I still think human nature gets in the way. It seems there is a willingness for a lot of people to work doubt their usual hours, slept the office etc, for their corporate overlord. Maybe staying longer isn't an option.
Are you guys sure of that one? I've always been under the impression that TLoU was the first game they missed their deadline in. And then U4 after that.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It can be and it can't be. Blizzard was notorious for giving projects as much time as needed in order to finish them and avoid having to go into crunch time, almost never committing to a release date. Then Diablo 3 happened. The project changed directions so many times that they were expending so much money on the project that eventually they nailed down a release internally and went into a massive crunch. Unlike something like StarCraft Ghost, it wasn't a project they could just cancel if it wasn't going well. This was a very important established core IP for them. But in general, up to that point and excluding their early games, not having set timelines for development allowed them to avoid serious crunch time.
Another bad case in point for unlimited development time is Lionhead studios. Oooof, that was so bad that it scarred Microsoft for years fundamentally changing how much freedom they allowed their 1st party developers.
It's obviously not an easy problem to solve internally. Naughty Dog famously claimed (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...y-santa-monica-and-blizzard-talk-about-crunch )
And while it still isn't "mandated" or "required", that recent article shows that it is expected and for at least some number of developers there, they were basically told they needed to stay late and do crunch time. Although I guess under pressure of negative performance reviews and potentially being fired does make one believe they "need to do this one thing."
Maybe it's just that some people are inherently lazy? Perhaps the wrong word to use, but there are some people that don't put in a full days work (preferring to chat with their neighbors, or take extended breaks, or browse the internet while "working") until things get "serious." I've run into many of those types of people, even really talented ones. They don't feel like chatting with their neighbors in the workplace or flirting with the receptionist during work hours or taking extended breaks hurts their performance because they feel they are putting in the required work.
But regardless of how they feel, it does slow down projects or impact how much work gets done which obviously contributes to deadlines slipping. Especially when other employees see them doing it and then think it's OK for them to do it. And then suddenly you're faced with 3-6 months (or more in some cases) of crunch time.
There are obviously also many other reasons. For example, perhaps tools are suddenly "found" to be inadequate partway through the project, thus initial projections are now inaccurate. Bioware's recent problems being an example of such. Do they just go with it or spend time to try to implement better tools?
Regardless, failure in management (which all of this is) isn't something that the employees should be made to suffer for. Or in the case of Naughty Dog perhaps lack of management...
It's a problem, but not a problem with an easy or clear solution.
I do find it interesting, however, that while EA gets lambasted by most people for this, Naughty Dog seemingly gets a pass by most people for this.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You're right, I thought U2 and U3 were too but it was only TLoU and U4. I was confusing ND with Rockstar where GTA IV, RDR, GTA V and RDR2 were all delayed.
Right, not laziness, but most people put in as much effort as the job requires. This is the human nature thing - it's the same reason you don't run everywhere, you don't need too. Walking is ample speed. Looming deadlines and being late your train will focus people's attention which is why I don't think aiming to complete a game earlier than near the project deadline works. I've never seen it work in practise; projects generally have time for slippage or unforeseen circumstances and these always seem to just push the whole schedule back until whatever period you thought you had reserved so you didn't need to resort to excessive overtime.
It’s a fine line, if you bust a gut the whole time then people will take advantage of that (it will be expected by management etc) and you’ll burn out. It’s good to have the low output ‘down times’ times because that’s also when you’ll start being proactive and improve processes to make your life easier.
It also means that when you do step up for that ‘battle’ you’ll be completely committed and focused with plenty of energy to see it through meaning you’re less likely to screw up.
It seems to me a lot of creatives at the top convince themselves all those below have the same passion for the project they do, the non sociopathic ones any way. So the way they sell it to themselves crunch becomes a shared commitment, rather than them being slave drivers ...
Especially the people with the jobs which get little respect in the first place probably think the latter is the better description.
Especially the people with the jobs which get little respect in the first place probably think the latter is the better description.
When I started in my job I was regularly doing 12 hour days to try to make an impression. At first everyone was really appreciative of how fast I was getting things done. Within a few months people started asking me to do things at 5pm and expecting me to have them finished for the next morning. I learned very quickly that you have to manage the expectations of the people around you, and a big part of that is setting boundaries.
Yep, you need to build in some time into any workload. Under promise and over deliver - it gives you wiggle room for unexpected work.
Another thing I do is make a point of laying the foundation of any large projects early on, that way if something comes up it won’t adversely affect the deadline and also means should I have a quiet time I can add some extras as it were.
More to add to the tale ...
Unrolled Tweet Thread @ https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1238199242256052224.html
Unrolled Tweet Thread @ https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1238199242256052224.html
When I left Naughty Dog late last year they threatened to withhold my final paycheck until I signed additional paperwork stating I wouldn't share their production practices. They finally relented when I assured them that was most likely illegal...
The truth is I have no awful crunch tale. The "story animators" as we were known were averaging 46hrs a week when I left and I personally never went over 55. The story team is super organised and we reacted to whatever was thrown at us. That's not to say others weren't suffering.
For the demo shown last September, the gameplay animators crunched more than I've ever seen and required weeks of recovery afterwards. One good friend of mine was hospitalised at that time due to overwork. He still had over half a year to go. There have been others since.
The reason I left is because I only want to work with the best. That is no longer Naughty Dog. Their reputation for crunch within LA is so bad it was near impossible to hire seasoned contract game animators to close out the project. As such we loaded up on film animators.
While super-talented, they lacked the technical/design knowhow to assemble scenes. Similarly, the design team ballooned with juniors to make up for the attrition of key roles. Every aspect of finishing this game took much longer due to the lack of game experience on the team.
Don't get me wrong, these kids are mostly awesome and the best were great. It's just when the junior/senior ratio is out of balance things can really grind and more time is spent training than actually working. (LA teams, make sure and pick them up when all the contracts end.)
Contract work is a huge part of the LA ecosystem to ship large games. Unlike game design, there is a thriving animation industry here and seasoned animators can (often) choose their projects. Most of the contract story animators quit last year.
Those that don't can be at ND for 2-3 projects (with pauses inbetwen) and, while paid overtime, never receive benefits or the security of a full-time gig. This is the way the industry is moving so workers need more protection rather than the carot of a fulltime job "one day".
There are ND stories worse than this but like everything on my twitter I'm focusing on animation. For TLOU2 fans, the game should turn out great with industry-leading animation. I would just not recommend anyone work at Naughty Dog until they prioritise talent-retention.
Ultimately, ND's linear games have a formula and they focus-test the shit out of them. While talented, their success is due in large part to Sony's deep pockets funding delays rather than skill alone. A more senior team would have shipped TLOU2 a year ago.
The truth is I have no awful crunch tale. The "story animators" as we were known were averaging 46hrs a week when I left and I personally never went over 55. The story team is super organised and we reacted to whatever was thrown at us. That's not to say others weren't suffering.
For the demo shown last September, the gameplay animators crunched more than I've ever seen and required weeks of recovery afterwards. One good friend of mine was hospitalised at that time due to overwork. He still had over half a year to go. There have been others since.
The reason I left is because I only want to work with the best. That is no longer Naughty Dog. Their reputation for crunch within LA is so bad it was near impossible to hire seasoned contract game animators to close out the project. As such we loaded up on film animators.
While super-talented, they lacked the technical/design knowhow to assemble scenes. Similarly, the design team ballooned with juniors to make up for the attrition of key roles. Every aspect of finishing this game took much longer due to the lack of game experience on the team.
Don't get me wrong, these kids are mostly awesome and the best were great. It's just when the junior/senior ratio is out of balance things can really grind and more time is spent training than actually working. (LA teams, make sure and pick them up when all the contracts end.)
Contract work is a huge part of the LA ecosystem to ship large games. Unlike game design, there is a thriving animation industry here and seasoned animators can (often) choose their projects. Most of the contract story animators quit last year.
Those that don't can be at ND for 2-3 projects (with pauses inbetwen) and, while paid overtime, never receive benefits or the security of a full-time gig. This is the way the industry is moving so workers need more protection rather than the carot of a fulltime job "one day".
There are ND stories worse than this but like everything on my twitter I'm focusing on animation. For TLOU2 fans, the game should turn out great with industry-leading animation. I would just not recommend anyone work at Naughty Dog until they prioritise talent-retention.
Ultimately, ND's linear games have a formula and they focus-test the shit out of them. While talented, their success is due in large part to Sony's deep pockets funding delays rather than skill alone. A more senior team would have shipped TLOU2 a year ago.
Also out today, another article by Jason Schreier
As Naughty Dog Crunches On The Last Of Us II, Developers Wonder How Much Longer This Approach Can Last
https://kotaku.com/as-naughty-dog-crunches-on-the-last-of-us-ii-developer-1842289962
I wonder if actually video games industry crunch is simply the most visible, and other industries also have the same cultural issue?
I was in a government owned infrastructure company for more than 2 years and the article feels really similar with my experience. Except for the feeling to give the best. It was not widespread, only very few workers had it.
I was in a government owned infrastructure company for more than 2 years and the article feels really similar with my experience. Except for the feeling to give the best. It was not widespread, only very few workers had it.
Last edited:
I think it's probably more common in gaming than a lot of other industries, but it's definitely not the only one.
So what his saying is that the reason for there success is the fantastic support they get from Sony. This is a known thing though isn't it? Didn't Ted Price say that no one compared with the support systems of Sony?
It seems an unfair statement though most publishers of AAA games allow for delays in fact I would say that most AAA devs probably have a history of having more delays than Naughty Dog does.
The part about the game coming out a year ago because of the lack of experience and that they not good enough for him comes across as sour grapes to me, I suppose we will see if the game is any good when it comes out.
Sour grapes for what? He didn’t get fired. He chose to leave.
Similar threads
- Locked