What Went Wrong
1. Build turnaround time too long. The
number one development mistake we made was to create a build process that took
longer than a few hours to complete. The build machines generated custom asset
loading lists and memory maps for each level. The level was "played"
on the NDEV by a bot while instrumented systems sent profile data back to the
PC. The data was then analyzed and used to construct an optimal level package.
This means that customers will experience short load times, dense levels, and
smooth gameplay -- but the resulting build time was nearly 16 hours for the
game's 37 levels and five languages.
This was acceptable early in the project when we were delivering builds two
or three times per week and wanted to focus on gameplay features. However, the
turnaround time was a painful delay during the final stretch when we needed to
respond quickly to minor requests from Nintendo or Gearbox.
We employed two
build machines, but we would have come out ahead had we spent another week
upfront to further parallelize and optimize the entire process.
2. Submitted too early.
The last few
weeks of any project are difficult. The end is close and everyone wants to see
the game on the shelves. We've seen a number of projects try to rush this stage
and each one has been kicked to the curb by either the publisher or the console
manufacturer. Being "bounced" invariably causes delays for the
developers as everyone takes an interest in the issues and is distracted by the
result.
It might create ill-will within the lot check trenches too, since receiving
anything but someone's finished product is bound to be frustrating. But we
ignored what we knew from experience when we heard that test turnaround times
at Nintendo were getting longer due to the holiday rush.
So we submitted early
and entered the bounce-house for a few cycles. Eventually we emerged on the
other side with a stamp of approval. But it was more like the nod of consent you'd
get from a border guard than the warm hug from your mom after school.
3. Shifted development team
before game approved.
Having small development teams means everyone's time
is in high demand. We had managed to keep the team intact up until the end of
the project, when we made the mistake of ramping down too quickly. As soon as
we submitted to Nintendo, we reduced the team size.
The result was that members of the team ended up bouncing
between projects towards the end of Brothers
in Arms: Double Time as the game came back from submission and required
more work. We had to shift resources to make sure we had the coverage we needed,
which added to the distraction of submitting and then regaining the staff to
respond to results.
We took the gamble and lost here, and the lesson we learned
is to give the project lifetime its proper due in all aspects, including
submission and staffing.
|
I haven't played the game so I don't know the scope, but only 15 people at peak with a 13 month dev time which includes building new tech looks like it would be quite tight, especially if they ramped down too early like mentioned?
The article also says the game was released in september 08 while there is a part where it says "...we started the project in late 2006..." more than half a year seems like a long time to get to the stores after going gold. Are the numbers here correct?
Anyways it looks like quite impressive and cool for a wii game!
The headcounts and timelines are correct. It was a strong group of experienced engineers. The game was finished and then held for release closer to the holiday season.
Cheers,
-Kurt