I think we had a conversation before about what is considered AAA and we didn't agree at the end of that. Naughty Dog stopped having two teams not because of the number of people but because of studio management, Naughty Dog was 200 people at the end of Uncharted 4 (reboot 2+ years.) I didn't say a remaster is as draining as an AAA game, I said it's still "a drain on the team." They were developing them alongside each other, it's going to slow down development. StoryLab doesn't just handle mo-cap, they handle production as well. StoryLab has been working with the Coalition since Shangheist. 80 people from Splash Damage worked on Gears not 300, and not all full time. This is the first time I'm hearing mid AAA, AAA's base hasn't raised some massive amount were games like Days Gone and GOT are considered "mid AAA." You will find very few people who would agree with you on that, the problem with each generation moving the base up for AAA is the gap between A, AA & AAA no longer makes sense. It's why AAAA or AAA+ is a better term for games like Anthem or GTA5, because you run into an issue were a product can be entirely similar but have different budgets. Were the only difference is budget, an AAA is not just defined by budget which I know you disagree on but it's the widely excepted definition. It can be based on marketing cost, production levels, development costs, sales and high economic risk. Insomniac didn't have the whole team on Spiderman the whole time there was transition periods, the Coalition wouldn't have two static teams that makes no sense. Respawn will have released Titanfall 1, Titanfall 2, Star Wars... and Titanfall 3, with two teams. So my points about it being early in production, Gears 5 taking 4 years instead of 3, growing the team and them probably having had the project in Pre-pro all still stand.
Last edited:
