Ben-DutkaWith the addition of Sledgehammer Games to the Call of Duty fold, Activision can now allow their developers to spend three years on a new franchise entry.
And Treyarch really appreciates that.
In a recent Game Informer interview , multiplayer director Dan Bunting said the new Titanfall -like action might not have come to fruition if they had had only two years:
In the two-year development cycles, the kinds of risks we're taking right now, we wouldn't be able to do with just two years because it needs so much iteration. We iterated on the first set of multiplayer maps for] a year. That's three maps we were working on and each one was constructed in a different way so that we could learn how the different map shapes and the different ways that you pace combat felt differently with the different moving mechanics as they came in."
Also, the new Specialist character system was another feature the required the extra time. Bunting says that before the Pick 10 in Black Ops II , they were headed down the path of character archetypes, but they just didn't have time to flesh out the idea. This time, they did.
See? More development time benefits everyone.
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Black Ops III
well theres only one way to tell if the 3 years really benefited them.
This is what EA needs to do with Battlefield.
Pretty choked they are going even more futuristic – not a big fan if all this jumping about shit in AW.
Me either…it was cool the first few days, then it got abused and annoying rather quickly.
it seems that the 3year cycle atleast improves things some what and yeah i guess i will give activision props for the time they are giving to devs ubisoft and EA could get some pointers from that point of view
happy gaming
Last edited by Rachet_JC_FTW on 5/4/2015 6:57:51 AM