Ciekawy artykuł na temat za dużej wielkości zespołów developerskich:
Najlepszy fragment to ten w cytacie. I jak tu się z nim nie zgodzić widząc większość tych AAA gierek.
By taking a single task and splitting it into multiple jobs, you are just creating more opportunities for potential fuck-ups. And by creating an unwieldy chain of command, you are essentially turning development into one big game of "telephone" -- one person passes a message to another, who passes it to another, and eventually the message gets so garbled that no one knows what the hell is going on anymore. In regards to Watch Dogs, there is no telling how the final build will turn out. But even if it releases to widespread acclaim, the thought that it could have been developed more efficiently will linger. How many other games would have benefited from a more sensible team composition? What is the incentive for assigning so many specialized tasks? Jacquey admits that "some systemic games you can probably afford to do a next-gen game with 100 people." So why not make that number the target, huh? Mark my words, these team sizes are going to be one of the primary killers of promising talent in the coming years, more so than "complex hardware" or other market realities. It simply boggles my mind. Read more at http://www.destructoid.com/aaa-game-development-teams-are-too-damn-big-247366.phtml#FUODDG33rlwBAExh.99