The Stellar Dawn related portion of the interview picks up on page two and continues on through page four.
Here are the juicy bits:
Quote
Mark Gerhard: That's a tough question. We had a whole lot of laudable aims about what the game would be, how it would be a real evolution from what we currently have. And, to a degree, what we had was very much the same but without the secret ingredient that makes it fun. We had a gorgeous-looking and sounding game but the content was shallow. Five or six years of content - it wasn't shallow in terms of input, there's probably millions of words in real terms. But it wasn't cohesive: it was a cacophony of ideas and ambitious. The glue that would have bound the whole game together wasn't quite there, wasn't quite right.
We spent two or three months asking how we could make it better, how we could fix it, but we kept coming back to the conclusion that we could make everything OK, but very little of it great. In the end, we never wanted to settle for a mediocre game. With all the smithing in the world, perhaps months more, perhaps we would have got out a game that was like everything out there. OK works at retail, OK doesn't work online.
Quote
Mark Gerhard: Tens of millions. A large sum: an eye-watering amount. We weren't cavalier about it. That really focused our minds. There's years of salary in there. Nevertheless, would we put our reputation at stake for tens of millions? Never.
Quote
Mark Gerhard: Absolutely. Whether we can afford it or not is academic. If it's not right, we won't launch it, simple as that. And again, that's not a decision we take lightly. We're not trivialising it nor are we being arrogant about our success, but our community has come to fondly regard us and respect us as a purveyor of high quality games. You can take on board that we haven't done a traditional new release now for 10 years. We rely on that good will, that trust, so they can play, take, buy our next product. It's crucial. Finances won't rule that decision.
Quote
Mark Gerhard: No, no. The team size is as significant as previously. 75? Yep, 75 people.
Look, we are being more cautious. We're certainly not being more sparing. What we did this time is we had the wisdom of hindsight. We could look at MechScape and go, "What went wrong?" And on a lot of things we didn't ask the difficult questions first. "What is combat? How does the economy work? How will trade work?" These are very boring questions, but until you know exactly makes the game fun, raw fun, you can't actually put the game around it.
When we went back to the drawing board on this one, the design team spent literally months saying, "Ignore what we've got, ignore how we want to play, let's answer these difficult questions. Let's talk about balance." Infinitely balancing components of a game you've yet to build when everyone tends to do it the other way round. As a result of locking down that game design Bible, the team has been able to develop really, really rapidly. And crucially it's now fun. We've now got a game we're all enormously proud of.
Quote
Mark Gerhard: Yeah... That wasn't true. That was an ambition, it wasn't a reality.
Quote
Mark Gerhard It will have an, er, accumulation mechanic.
Quote
Mark Gerhard The game meta-view, story, concept remain the same. We still loved the story, it was just the implementation.
There are a lot of small details I left out for the sake of keeping things short, so make sure to read the full article!

Help
Halo
Assasin's Creed
Call of Duty
Diablo
Final Fantasy
God of War
Starcraft
Socom
World of Warcraft
World of Warcraft 2











<-- Goal





















