Ex-Assassin’s Creed Director’s Fix for AAA Game Development
▼ Summary
– Alexandre Amancio argues the AAA industry is in crisis due to over-expansion, risk-averse thinking, and a focus on metrics over creativity, leading to layoffs and stagnation.
– He believes the future lies in smaller, core teams that avoid management bloat, learning from the film industry’s model of temporary, project-specific crews.
– Effective development requires clear constraints and direction, especially when using co-development studios, to provide autonomy within a defined framework.
– Innovation and feature creep must be managed by filtering ideas against a game’s core pillars, as constraints are essential for forcing creative excellence.
– Reusing established assets and worlds could speed up development, but requires honest communication with players and balancing innovation with audience expectations.
The current landscape of major video game development faces significant challenges, marked by widespread studio layoffs and a perceived creative stagnation. According to industry veteran Alexandre Amancio, the root cause lies in a shift away from bold creativity toward an over-reliance on metrics and risk-averse thinking. Having served as creative director for major titles like Assassin’s Creed: Revelations and Assassin’s Creed: Unity, Amancio argues that the pursuit of greatness has been replaced by the pursuit of data, leading to a crisis in how large-scale games are made.
Amancio, now in a senior role at FunPlus, believes the solution begins with acknowledging the inherent complexity of game development. He describes it as a “wicked problem,” where the process is so variable that determining the most efficient path after the fact is nearly impossible. The broad definition of a “video game” further complicates matters, meaning solutions must be tailored to a project’s specific scale and genre. The key is to identify critical choke points in production to systematically manage the inherent complexity.
A primary issue Amancio highlights is the unsustainable size of modern development teams. He references a theory that once a team surpasses roughly one hundred people, the management structure becomes disproportionately heavy, shifting focus from creation to coordination. The flawed instinct to solve problems by adding more staff often just creates noise and slows down those who were already working efficiently. The future, he suggests, lies in adopting a leaner, more adaptable model inspired by the film industry, utilizing a core team that brings in specialized, temporary crews for specific project needs.
This approach acknowledges the unique hybrid nature of game development, which straddles software engineering and creative storytelling. Unlike film, where a solid script precedes production, games are often built iteratively, with fun and innovation discovered along the way. Amancio uses a train analogy: a massive, inflexible train risks tearing itself apart as different sections move at different speeds. A leaner train, where cars are picked up and dropped off as needed, offers a more manageable and dynamic model for production.
When it comes to collaborating with external studios, Amancio emphasizes the importance of clear constraints. For a self-contained module, like a naval combat system, giving a co-development studio autonomy within well-defined boundaries often yields the best results. This directive approach prevents wasted effort and allows the external team to potentially exceed the original vision. He cautions that excessive freedom at the outset can be detrimental, leaving both parties trying to “hit a dartboard in the dark.”
Amancio also stresses the critical importance of a solid pre-production phase, culminating in a functional prototype that captures the core experience. However, he notes that for systemic games, where mechanics interact to create emergent gameplay, creating a true vertical slice may require building a significant portion of the actual game. This underscores the unique challenge of validating the macro experience only after all systems are integrated.
Reflecting on his time with Assassin’s Creed: Unity, Amancio reveals an alternative vision that was ultimately shelved. The team had conceptualized a more systemic, player-driven experience where individuals could carve their own unique path through the French Revolution, moving beyond a single linear narrative. While the scale and risk of such innovation, alongside technical challenges like developing a new engine and integrating co-op, led to a more traditional choice, he believes embracing that kind of systemic “chaos” could modernize the franchise.
To manage the constant influx of new ideas and prevent feature creep, Amancio advocates for transparency. By clearly communicating a project’s core creative pillars, such as assassination, social stealth, and parkour for Assassin’s Creed, team members can self-filter their suggestions. Ideas that strongly overlap with these pillars are worth discussion, while divergent concepts are naturally sidelined. He firmly believes that creative constraints, whether technical or financial, are the secret to excellence, forcing teams to move beyond their first, most obvious ideas and discover truly innovative solutions.
Regarding development timelines, Amancio notes that speed increases are possible if innovation is not the primary goal. Reusing robust world systems and assets, much like the Yakuza/Like a Dragon series does with its fictional districts, could allow for more frequent releases. He suggests that studios could honestly engage their audience about such approaches, potentially releasing refined, bug-free experiences in familiar settings much faster. The public’s reception would quickly indicate whether players are open to this model, provided the core creative experience remains compelling and well-crafted.
(Source: Games Industry)
