Is the short development period going to hurt skyrim?

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:11 am

This game looks so big and vast.. one would assume that bethesda would be working on this for more than a couple of years, as it has been true with their previous games like morrowind, oblivion and fallout 3.

Do you think that a longer development period would have benefited a game like this more? Just to iron out the bugs and stuff? This is just my opinion on this matter.. so just share your thoughts, i'm not trying to start anything here. :violin:

Edit: Skyrim went into full production once fallout 3 was finished, and i'd imagine.. since its the full team thats working on it, they had to wait till most of the DLC for fallout 3 was finished.. so 2009 might be it. Thats what i think, oblivion/fallout 3 took twice as much development time than skyrim.. cant hurt to be a little worried considering bethesda past efforts right? Bug wise anyway.
User avatar
cassy
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:57 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:04 am

It had plenty of development time... :confused:
User avatar
Matt Fletcher
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:48 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:47 pm

Srsly, no.
User avatar
roxxii lenaghan
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:53 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:55 pm

wait... when did it get discovered Skyrim has had a short developement time? I was under the impression that they have been working on it since they finished shivering Isles.
User avatar
Nicole Kraus
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:34 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:40 pm

It already has, it's the reason beast legs aren't in the game as confirmed by Vsions.
User avatar
mollypop
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:47 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:26 pm

Where the heck did you come up with this notion that Skyrim's only had a short development time? Sounds like your trying to start something...
User avatar
Dewayne Quattlebaum
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:29 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:18 am

5 Years of development time is considered short?
User avatar
QuinDINGDONGcey
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:11 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am

wait... when did it get discovered Skyrim has had a short developement time? I was under the impression that they have been working on it since they finished shivering Isles.

If i can remember.. skyrim went into full production once fallout 3 was finished, along with all the DLC i would assume.
User avatar
Jessica Thomson
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:10 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:25 pm

It had plenty of development time... :confused:

^This...

:rolleyes:
It has seriously had enough time and many of its features sound and look better than Oblivion.
User avatar
JUan Martinez
 
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:12 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:32 am

This has been in development since they released Fallout 3... what's short about that?
User avatar
SHAWNNA-KAY
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:22 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:19 pm

There were some quotes from Todd that indicated that they started work on Skyrim almost immediately after the release of fallout 3 which was late october 2008 so that gave them a full 3 years for development on a generation of consoles that they have alot of experience with. They know what they're doing, we just have to trust that we'll get another exceptional game from them.
User avatar
Ludivine Poussineau
 
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:49 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:47 pm

This game looks so big and vast.. one would assume that bethesda would be working on this for more than a couple of years, as it has been true with their previous games like morrowind, oblivion and fallout 3.

Do you think that a longer development period would have benefited a game like this more? Just to iron out the bugs and stuff? This is just my opinion on this matter.. so just share your thoughts, i'm not trying to start anything here. :violin:


It was revealed last December, but it's been in development in one capacity or another since 2006/7. They started smashing on it around 2008 after FO3 was released.


Edit:

it has had more dev time than FO3 if I had to guess. Oblivion = 2006, FO3 = 2008, Skyrim = 2011 (but been kinda worked on since 2006)
User avatar
rebecca moody
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:01 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:27 pm

um someone is confusing announcement time with development time like seriously 5 years is quite enough they said its been worked on since oblivion and since they said dragons were their focus for 2-3 years im sure its been more than a couple of months or a year unless Todd time travels with his team
User avatar
Chris Jones
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 3:11 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:37 am

It has been in development since oblivion came out and that was a long time ago, so I don't think it will be bad.
User avatar
Kevin Jay
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:29 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:48 pm

Of course, but where do you draw the line? They could spend 10-15 years+ crafting the most amazing open-world RPG ever made... but it wouldn't be good for business.

I'm just glad they're not churning out TES games ever year or two.
User avatar
Emma-Jane Merrin
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:52 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:47 pm

This game looks so big and vast.. one would assume that bethesda would be working on this for more than a couple of years, as it has been true with their previous games like morrowind, oblivion and fallout 3.

Do you think that a longer development period would have benefited a game like this more? Just to iron out the bugs and stuff? This is just my opinion on this matter.. so just share your thoughts, i'm not trying to start anything here. :violin:


Short development? :shakehead:
User avatar
Natasha Biss
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:47 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:44 am

Theyve been working on skyrim since fallout haha. thats really long... They dont want to pull a blizzard and work on skyrim like theyre working on diablo -_-
User avatar
joeK
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:22 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:00 pm

It was revealed last December, but it's been in development in one capacity or another since 2006/7. They started smashing on it around 2008 after FO3 was released.


Edit:

it has had more dev time than FO3 if I had to guess. Oblivion = 2006, FO3 = 2008, Skyrim = 2011 (but been kinda worked on since 2006)



^^ This ^^ Not short at all, I don't think anything will be "hurt" but if there are any GAME BREAKING bugs I'll be pissed. Small and funny bugs / glitches are to be expected. Todd even said if they are funny and not game breaking they intentionally leave them in.
User avatar
JUDY FIGHTS
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:06 pm

yes because longer development time always makes a better game, I mean look at Duke Nukedom
longer time doesnt always mean better game, I think 4 years is a fair amount of time
User avatar
Josee Leach
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:50 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:52 pm

100 employees x 2000hr work year x 3 years = 600,000 man hours. That's not including overtime and we all know that game developers put in ridiculous amounts of over time. This development cycle is pushing a million man hours. That's long enough.
User avatar
Daniel Holgate
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:02 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:38 am

100 employees x 2000hr work year x 3 years = 600,000 man hours. That's not including overtime and we all know that game developers put in ridiculous amounts of over time. This development cycle is pushing a million man hours. That's long enough.

Very well said thats ALOT of development time.
User avatar
Sam Parker
 
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 3:10 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:25 pm

it has had more dev time than FO3 if I had to guess. Oblivion = 2006, FO3 = 2008, Skyrim = 2011 (but been kinda worked on since 2006)

If I'm not mistaken, they had been working on FO3 since they announced Oblivion.
User avatar
Devin Sluis
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:22 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:05 pm

100 employees x 2000hr work year x 3 years = 600,000 man hours. That's not including overtime and we all know that game developers put in ridiculous amounts of over time. This development cycle is pushing a million man hours. That's long enough.


Yeah but a blackout can really set them back.
User avatar
Sabrina garzotto
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:58 pm

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:34 am

as soon as they finished fallout 3 the started work on it so its development time wasnt short by any means.
User avatar
Spaceman
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:09 am

Post » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:35 am

yes because longer development time always makes a better game, I mean look at Duke Nukedom
longer time doesnt always mean better game, I think 4 years is a fair amount of time

FOR A GAME LIKE SKYRIM!!

Open world games like these aren't easy to make, even for rockstar which have been making open world games for most of their career.
User avatar
Samantha Jane Adams
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:00 pm

Next

Return to V - Skyrim