|>>|| No. 22033
>Pretty much all modern AAA titles have horrendous codebases. When you're just trying to get a product out of the door as cheaply and quickly as possible, maintainability goes out of the window.
This is less true than it used to be. Most modern development houses use pretty rigorous version control and modularity and such, because the projects are so vast and involve so many people in specialist areas ("water physics programmer", etc etc). You're guaranteed to have serious problems troubleshooting projects of this size if the source code is one big tarball that only one person really understands. This was often the case back in the PS/PS2 days, and pretty much universal earlier, but times change. Projects tend to follow "agile" development, Scrum etc (since they change drastically over the course of the project), and games have been increasingly incorporating online/multiplayer elements that will continue to be developed post-launch for some time now (RDR was no exception), all of which make a case for a modular, maintainable codebase. That's not to say that all modern game code is meticulously tidy, obviously, and for games that are platform-exclusive there'll be significant specialisation to the architecture. There were versions of RDR on 360 and PS3, though, so if Rockstar decided to put the resources into making a PC version I imagine it would at least be less hassle than most exclusive games of that generation, many of which have been ported to the PC/modern x86 consoles.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see a HD remake for modern platforms prior to RDR2.