Originally Posted by
Moataz
its not about getting disappointed when I get the game because I know its going to be good(not deluding myself)
like lets make a comparison between a space game made by HG and a space game made by ubisoft/rockstar/EA etc..
Any Big company space game:
limited space(1 solar system)
better graphics
more employees
making the game in a year since they have lots of employees
finishing it and contains glitches and stuff.
they don't respect the game enough and its going to be shot down by critics.
HG space game:
smaller size(in gb's)
cartoon graphics
endless universe(not limited)
more variety of things like animals
making it with passion and with a small team that work hard to turn out great.
lil bit of glitches but not too many like(assassins creed)
critics saying the game is good
you know why? because they have been working on it for a long time, they have been trying to perfect it for so long(Not like ubisoft who makes a game each year and turns out to be bad. lets add an exception for ubisoft because watchdogs2) even though they had a small team, they still did it and perfected it. and obviously people are going to love it. so you should reconsider stuff about the game because It might turn out great(not because I am deluding myself).
You clearly have no idea what making a game is like.
Let's assume two thirds of the game's file size is assets, like music, textures, and character models, which is generous considering this is a game that's selling itself on procedural generation. That's still 2 GB of code that's been written, for game play, for their server integration, for their supposedly unique lobby system that would enable you seeing another player in your game. 2 GB is a very large amount of code, and it's foolish to assume that you will see "very few" glitches. Most modern games, even those with large development times, will have a substantial number of glitches solely because of the magnitude of the game.
And let's get on to your assumptions. Triple A game developers are not incapable of making a good game. In fact, they're usually quite good at making good games. You don't get the resources necessary to make large games with large teams from nothing, you're clearly doing something right if you're making enough money to produce games with those circumstances.
Second, you act like a large team can't have passion in the game they're producing. People don't become game developers because of the money, the starting wage as QA testers is below the median yearly income of America, and the average wage of the grunts of the game industry is pretty much on the median. People makes games because they like games, even those who are contracted under a large company.
Third, your very listing of the features from each game shows how little you actually understand the scope of the very game you're defending. Limited space in a game can mean one of two things. One, it's procedurally generated, but they just limit how much will be generated because to create more would be an allocation of resources on either the client or the server that they do not want, or cannot maintain, which is much harder for a game that has higher graphical fidelity. Or two, it's hand-crafted, which means they had team members design every section of that world, which is a much greater volume of work that just procedurally generating everything, since you have to go in an place every last object that the player will ever spot. And for a game that's supposedly going to have planets the size of planets, it's impractical. In fact, if you're making anything on that large of a scale, it's much easier to just procedurally generate the entirety of it.
This also is reflected in you believing a larger variety of animals is somehow impressive as well. You can procedurally generate creatures just as easily as you can procedurally generate planets. If we even assume there's 6 different variables that are modified per creature (head, body, legs, body features, size, aggressiveness), and assume 1 of them, aggressiveness, is binary, if you put 5 different options for each of the remaining 5 variables (which is giving credit that they don't just accept a variable for size and it scales accordingly, which would give it a near infinite number of options) and then RNG create creatures out of the options, you create 3125 unique looking creatures after only designing 20 visual assets, and create another 3125 versions of an opposite temperament.
Lastly, critics don't give a fuck who creates a game, they care if the game is fun. If a Triple A developer makes a fun game, which they do accomplish, it's why they're Triple A developers, then a critic won't judge them on the size of their company, they'll give them a good rating and that's that.
So please, at least understand what you're arguing for before you start spouting out your defense of it.