That's quite a bold statement considering DA2 was released this year. :teehee:
I hate Dragon Age II with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. But not because it was a "Bad" Game, because it really wasn't.
I hated it, because it was a lie. A series that was established on the core of tactical PCRPG gaming, an experience as rare as they get these days. I bought (And subsequently resold) Dragon Age II under the assumption that I was going to get an experience like that again, because they're so rare, it's what I wanted, it's what a lot of people wanted.
Instead, I got the same experience I can get (And done much better) in Mass Effect 1-2, that's not what I signed up for.
For what it set out to be be, basically a Console tactical Hack'n'slash, Dragon Age II largely succeeded as a game, I just hate that it lied about it's motivation.
Now, more on topic, building on a lot of people pulling up the size of the Dev team. It's true, when used well, the sheer industrial power and manhour capabilities of a team that size is amazing. The problem comes, if they aren't working together effectively, towards the same goal. This is where the Game Director really comes into play. I'd imagine it's quite a task for Todd, communicating between so many groups, with such diverse backgrounds and skillsets, and keeping everything cohesive. Translating what an Artist wants, to a Programmer, and what a programmer can do to an animator, is incredibly difficult. When a game feels disjointed, it's largely a failure of the director to keep everyone under the same inspiration.
A Development team is a lot like a weapon for the director. If you aren't capable of wielding something with that much power, you wind up doing worse than if you scaled back to what you could handle.