AAA development cycles have increased dramatically since Mass Effect 2 launched in 2010, to the point that it's not uncommon to see 10-year gaps between mainline releases i.e. The Elder Scrolls 6, GTA 6, and Fallout 5. Contrast that with the 26 months in-between Mass Effect 1 and 2, and you start to wonder what type of coffee the folks at now-defunct BioWare were drinking back then. The truth is, the size and scope of big-budget games have ballooned alongside development cycles, but the Mass Effect 2 team benefited from a number of other factors that seem sorely lacking in today's AAA landscape, as pointed out by Mass Effect 2 lead designer Christina Norman.
In a new tweet, Norman explains "how mass effect 2 came together in 18 months successfully," and well, it reads like a list of things AAA studios aren't doing anymore. First of all, "it was the same team that shipped mass effect," says Norman, adding that, "teams often have a lot of turn over," but for ME2, "the core team stayed the same." A novel concept, I know, but maybe there is something to the idea of maintaining a long-term vision and trusting your staff through highs and lows that results in long-term success.
Norman also says the team at BioWare "knew the timeline up front" and learned from Mass Effect 1 on a couple of points. "A lot of mistakes" were made developing Mass Effect 1 in Unreal, and so the developers "came into mass effect 2 knowing how to build" in that engine. Also, the Mass Effect 2 team was "ruthless about limiting scope," says Norman. "Mass Effect 1 was a much higher scope game and we had to cut about half of it just to ship. The team hated that and it was wasteful because a lot of work didn't ship. We cut our scope to the bone early on so no work was wasted."
How mass effect 2 came together in 18 months successfully: - It was the same team that shipped mass effect. Teams often have a lot of turn over, the core team stayed on for mass effect 2. - We knew the timeline up front (I believe the dragon age 2 team had their schedule pulled in six months or more which was rough( - We struggled a lot shipping mass effect 1 on unreal and we made a lot of mistakes. We came into mass effect 2 knowing how to build with unreal. - We were ruthless about limiting scope. Mass Effect 1 was a much higher scope game and we had to cut about half of it just to ship. The team hated that and it was wasteful because a lot of work didn't ship. We cut our scope to the bone early on so no work was wasted. - We listened to the player feedback on mass effect 1 and used that to decide what to cut, what to keep, and what to improve. Mass effect 2 was not perfect, but it benefited so much from setting realistic achievable goals given the short development timeline.November 8, 2026
Finally, and this sounds pretty key, BioWare "listened to the player feedback on mass effect 1 and used that to decide what to cut, what to keep, and what to improve. Mass effect 2 was not perfect, but it benefited so much from setting realistic achievable goals given the short development timeline."
Of course, Mass Effect 2 is considered by many to be the best game in the series, although there's definitely not a clear consensus on that in the community. The fact that it was made by the same team as the first game in just 18 months is staggering, and it's a somber reminder of the glory days in the wake of EA's cancelation of Mass Effect 5 and shutdown of BioWare.
