Contents
Postmortem: Brothers in Arms: Double Time
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Evnironment Modeler
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [7]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Time Fcuk [1]
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Postmortem: Brothers in Arms: Double Time
by Kristin Price, Kurt Reiner
2 comments
Share RSS
 
 
September 30, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 4 Next
 

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.

Advertisement

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. 

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 4 Next
 
Comments

Janne Haffer
profile image
Interesting article but I have some questions:
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!

Kurt Reiner
profile image
Hiya Janne,
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


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment