Long Dev Time Equals Better Game?
Via a GameSetWatch post, a piece on Treyarch Producer Stuart Roch's blog. He discusses the long development time of Shadow of the Colossus, and what four years of work did for that title. From the article: "Granted, it's a bit of a stretch to make a simple correlation between more development time and higher quality product based on this tiny product sample, but I have to admit, there is certain attractiveness to the argument. Can it be that in a given number of development cycles, those that had more time with less resources would create better games than those that had short dev cycles with monster teams? One might think that having more time would allow for more polish and iteration and therefore yield higher quality product, but as I'm sure you're thinking, examples can be made of both good and bad games that were in production for long periods of time."
Duke Nukem Forever will be uber sweet.
Daikatana
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
Blizzard games are not rushed. They turn out excellent because they are not rushed.
One of the developers of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker disclosed that collecting the pieces of the Triforce was rushed, and that turned out to be the most annoying part of the game among critics.
Usually if something is taking a long time, it's not because you haven't polished it enough, or because it's not perfect yet, but rather because it's too broken to sell in its current state. Usually a 3-5 month initial devel, followed by a month or so of in house testing, followed by 3 fscking years of beta tests leads to a very polished terd with lots of useless doodads added on.
Yes, there are examples of projects that have taken a long time, and been good at the end, but you can not correlate the long dev time to the quality in way. The only thing the long time speaks for is that the developers couldn't get everything done in a smaller amount of time. "Everything" of course refers not just to features but also the features working correctly.
><));>
Mythical Man Month
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Of course that doesn't make sense to the publisher, but it really would be the way to get the best games as an end result. You would (or maybe wouldn't) be surprised at how much stuff has been cut out of the games that I've worked on, ALWAYS due to lack of time.
Trying to crunch the development cycle pretty much always just perpetuates this lack of time, no matter how many people you have on the project. When people start going fast they make mistakes. Sometimes they make structural mistakes, or don't think systems out enough before they start implementing. This stuff really bites you further down the line. And forget about having time to go back and clean up existing systems, that oppertunity is very very rare.
Of course these things aren't really game specific, I'm sure people in other lines of work have seen similar trends.
Sometimes you strain and strain and strain for what feels like hours and are sorely dissapointed by the piffly splash.
Othertimes without even trying your bowels fall out and you almost get swept away by the tidal wave wake it causes.
Don't rush development and for gods sake, flush afterwards.
I have code that I've been holding off developing for a while now - the ideas are still fresh and there isn't any market competition, however I just don't feel relaxed enough to code it yet. The time will come, I'm not going to rush it.
liqbase
This means all my hard work these past 20 years on my pet project, "E.T. II" for the Atari 2600, have not been in vain!!!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I suspect it's the same with video games- one person with a great idea and good programming skill could program the next "Geometry Wars" in a couple months, while some shovelware games have taken huge groups of people years. (Daikatana is the first that pops into everyone's head, but there have been others). Don't judge a game by how much time has been spent on it- it's like saying a movie will be good because it had a high budget.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I guess the money men like to have some concrete metrics they can hang their hats on, but the hard truth is just that CREATIVE TEAMS make great games. Without a good vision and good creative people behind it, no amount of time will make the game great.
EVE Online apparently went through 11 development cycles, with several complete re-codes, over a period of a few years. Their graphics / MMO engine was so ambitious at the time that the developers couldn't do it one big go, so they did it in numerous steps. For them, it paid off.
= 3l t.asp?a=download&vid=41
http://myeve.eve-online.com/download/videos/?type
http://myeve.eve-online.com/download/videos/Defau
Is that whatever technology you settle on may be obviously inferior by the time you release. Imagine starting a game on dx9 now that takes four years to complete. By then the world has dx11 and you have obviously dated graphics.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
95% of the gaming population swears that it sucks, 5% didn't answer the question.
100% of those numbers were pulled out of my ass a few seconds ago.
(seriously, it sucks, badly, it was the worst FPS of that time, and it basically ended Romero's career as a PC dev, and more or less shut Ion Storm).
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
I'm not sure if the dukenukem tag on the article should be modded "funny" or "flamebait" :)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank