>>514724466
Agile is a scaling solution either way.
When we worked we became bigger fans of unified process, which is similar to the waterfall model, but it's one where you try to map out everything to a schedule, then execute, review parts of the pipeline and iterate those until it looks good, and then you take out that planned development in chunks basically.
The fucking issue with Agile is that it basically makes the entire project "wishy washy". We were also told to stop thinking about "Design Documents" because "they don't use it anymore." And it's true. But it's also why Zelda Ocarina of Time has like, you know, a STRUCTURE to it, and Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom is just "go anywhere, do anything, 50 caves, 154 puzzle rooms, copy-pasted minibosses everywhere, bla bla bla"
It's because with Agile, you basically just create a "template" and then you delegate work out anonymously so that individuals become owners of small parts of the game. So maybe 1 region of an Open World game was tasked by 2 designers and 3 programmers, and the top direction don't REALLY control anything about that part of the game.
The net effect is that you get games that have a lot of "content" in them, but a sense of unfocus. You spend endless hours inside the game, but you start getting bored before you've kinda seen what's clearly going to come later in the game.
That's why I prefer older games and more linear corridor games, or at least games with hub areas, and corridor levels, because those are all made in a fucking pipeline, and the leadership stays in touch with what each part is supposed to look like, and review how good it feels when you go from Level 2 to level 5, to see if the game is starting to get too boring or too rapid.
With Open World you just test player telemitry and track player behavior in a big map, and then you ask anonymous no-gooders to add "something" in the places where you can see the players get bored.