The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On the 16th January 2001, news was heard that shocked the PlayStation 2 world: Gran Turismo 3, previously slated for launch day and then February, was to be delayed until early June. At best.
Unfortunately, this is becoming an all to common sight on the PS2. Although we haven’t seen a delay of Zelda 64 proportions (10 delays and a staggering 3 years), there’s still an interesting pattern emerging. Almost all of 2001’s big titles (WipE’out” Fusion, Dark cloud, Metal Gear Solid 2) have all been pencilled in for “quarters” (the 4 yearly segments) rather than specific days.
The truth is, quarters have been around for a while, but even the 3-month breathing room doesn’t prevent titles from slipping to the next quarter. The worst offenders of this are the hyped, “big” titles. The reason for this is right from the beginning, developers are keen to push the game so they release mocked up shots to whet the appetite of potential buyers, and also making the game look more finished than it really is. A side effect of this is the media fervour whipped up forces the publishers (NOT the developers) to give a release date. The problem with this is the dates are usually fantasy. The developers need to get a publishing deal, so they say “Oh, we think we can get it done for…” but in reality they know there’s no way they’ll do it. Then, the developer changes it’s mind in order to prevent losing the deal. However, even picture-perfect planning can turn into delays, especially if the team are working with new technology, or they are young and inexperienced. Even seasoned developers can run into problems though, if tools and libraries haven’t been debugged properly.
There are three main reasons why a game can be delayed:
1. The development team are working with new technology. This is probably the PS2’s main problem, as the hardware is very difficult to work with. I remember reading a story where a developer spent 3 months working with a dev kit before they could get a picture on the screen. Another thing is if new technology hasn’t been released yet or the specs haven’t been finalised. E.g. How the PS2 HDD will work.
2. Part or all of the development team haven’t worked on a game before. This may seem like a suicidal idea but I bet it happens quite often. Developers are constantly looking for new talent, and the best way to teach them the ropes is to throw them in at the deep end. Of course this probably wouldn’t happen on a AAA title such as MGS2, but it can happen.
3. The team are being too ambitious. This last reason is especially apparent in the big names such as MGS2 and GT3. These are very ambitious titles because they are doing things never done before and are taking the technology to new levels. They are pioneers in gaming, and pioneering takes times, usually longer than expected.
In my opinion delays are acceptable as long as they make the game better. This isn’t always the case though. Look at Hearts of Darkness. Infogrames started this as a 2D platformer that promised revolutionary visuals and incredible animation when it was first announced in 1995. 4 years, several re-workings, a staggering £4million and a new platform later, it received awful reviews and was a total flop. It just came too late.
So what’s the answer? How do you stop these huge delays and massive disappointments? Simple: Don’t announce a release date. This may seem stupid but it’s true. Better yet, don’t announce the game. This happened with Quake 3 Revolution. It went straight to shelves a few months ago. There weren’t any previews, special shots or exclusive interviews, just a game and a quiet notice to the magazines telling them they’d released the game. The magazines were confounded. Usually, straight to review = pile of pants, but Quake 3 was an amazing game, possibly even better than the mighty TimeSplitters. It received great reviews and sold well, nearly making it to the top of the chart. It didn’t sell quite as well as it might of, but it still raked it in and the developers were looking very pleased. So, are quiet releases the answer? Well, I think not but maybe a compromise. I think developers should quietly make the game, and then announce it, say, 2 months before its released. This gives the developers time to finish the game and stir up some enthusiasm for the game. Also, at this point a game can only be delayed by about a month, but if a complete re-working is required, they should just completely cool off on the game and not release any more information for another few months. This way, you get just the right amount of hype but you also have a back-up plan.
So, what do you all think? Hype and disappointment, or surprise and satisfaction? Discuss:
Unfortunately, this is becoming an all to common sight on the PS2. Although we haven’t seen a delay of Zelda 64 proportions (10 delays and a staggering 3 years), there’s still an interesting pattern emerging. Almost all of 2001’s big titles (WipE’out” Fusion, Dark cloud, Metal Gear Solid 2) have all been pencilled in for “quarters” (the 4 yearly segments) rather than specific days.
The truth is, quarters have been around for a while, but even the 3-month breathing room doesn’t prevent titles from slipping to the next quarter. The worst offenders of this are the hyped, “big” titles. The reason for this is right from the beginning, developers are keen to push the game so they release mocked up shots to whet the appetite of potential buyers, and also making the game look more finished than it really is. A side effect of this is the media fervour whipped up forces the publishers (NOT the developers) to give a release date. The problem with this is the dates are usually fantasy. The developers need to get a publishing deal, so they say “Oh, we think we can get it done for…” but in reality they know there’s no way they’ll do it. Then, the developer changes it’s mind in order to prevent losing the deal. However, even picture-perfect planning can turn into delays, especially if the team are working with new technology, or they are young and inexperienced. Even seasoned developers can run into problems though, if tools and libraries haven’t been debugged properly.
There are three main reasons why a game can be delayed:
1. The development team are working with new technology. This is probably the PS2’s main problem, as the hardware is very difficult to work with. I remember reading a story where a developer spent 3 months working with a dev kit before they could get a picture on the screen. Another thing is if new technology hasn’t been released yet or the specs haven’t been finalised. E.g. How the PS2 HDD will work.
2. Part or all of the development team haven’t worked on a game before. This may seem like a suicidal idea but I bet it happens quite often. Developers are constantly looking for new talent, and the best way to teach them the ropes is to throw them in at the deep end. Of course this probably wouldn’t happen on a AAA title such as MGS2, but it can happen.
3. The team are being too ambitious. This last reason is especially apparent in the big names such as MGS2 and GT3. These are very ambitious titles because they are doing things never done before and are taking the technology to new levels. They are pioneers in gaming, and pioneering takes times, usually longer than expected.
In my opinion delays are acceptable as long as they make the game better. This isn’t always the case though. Look at Hearts of Darkness. Infogrames started this as a 2D platformer that promised revolutionary visuals and incredible animation when it was first announced in 1995. 4 years, several re-workings, a staggering £4million and a new platform later, it received awful reviews and was a total flop. It just came too late.
So what’s the answer? How do you stop these huge delays and massive disappointments? Simple: Don’t announce a release date. This may seem stupid but it’s true. Better yet, don’t announce the game. This happened with Quake 3 Revolution. It went straight to shelves a few months ago. There weren’t any previews, special shots or exclusive interviews, just a game and a quiet notice to the magazines telling them they’d released the game. The magazines were confounded. Usually, straight to review = pile of pants, but Quake 3 was an amazing game, possibly even better than the mighty TimeSplitters. It received great reviews and sold well, nearly making it to the top of the chart. It didn’t sell quite as well as it might of, but it still raked it in and the developers were looking very pleased. So, are quiet releases the answer? Well, I think not but maybe a compromise. I think developers should quietly make the game, and then announce it, say, 2 months before its released. This gives the developers time to finish the game and stir up some enthusiasm for the game. Also, at this point a game can only be delayed by about a month, but if a complete re-working is required, they should just completely cool off on the game and not release any more information for another few months. This way, you get just the right amount of hype but you also have a back-up plan.
So, what do you all think? Hype and disappointment, or surprise and satisfaction? Discuss:
Page:
Does anyone else have a error message where the ad banner should be?
Error! Query failed! (Duplicate entry '139' for key 2)
is what is says. Get it fixed, Webmaster!
Error! Query failed! (Duplicate entry '139' for key 2)
is what is says. Get it fixed, Webmaster!
I heard Zelda was delayed for 3 years and 10 times, not just in the making.
Sorry, I don't really follow.
Zelda released within a month of the Japanese version well done the games what is that Nintendo didn't renew their contract oh yeah, ha,ha,ha.
Sorry.
Dringo.
Sorry.
Dringo.
AliBoy wrote:
> What annoys me more than the delays is when a decent looking game
> gets hyped up in magazines and then never gets released or it gets
> released but with alot of the good things missing from the early
> stages of design. Developers should do more to find out what the
> gamers want, this way the games would be of a higher standard.
They do this to rush the game out in the least amount of time possible, when the publishers urge them to elease it when they think it'll sell bucketloads anyway.
> What annoys me more than the delays is when a decent looking game
> gets hyped up in magazines and then never gets released or it gets
> released but with alot of the good things missing from the early
> stages of design. Developers should do more to find out what the
> gamers want, this way the games would be of a higher standard.
They do this to rush the game out in the least amount of time possible, when the publishers urge them to elease it when they think it'll sell bucketloads anyway.
What annoys me more than the delays is when a decent looking game gets hyped up in magazines and then never gets released or it gets released but with alot of the good things missing from the early stages of design. Developers should do more to find out what the gamers want, this way the games would be of a higher standard.
Grandprix wrote:
> I tried to release that yesterday but I had to put the date back a
> year. LOL!
Lol... just like my "under construction" website - due to be finished almost a year ago.
> I tried to release that yesterday but I had to put the date back a
> year. LOL!
Lol... just like my "under construction" website - due to be finished almost a year ago.
I tried to release that yesterday but I had to put the date back a year. LOL!
Unless it was an easy program to code, like... 1 block tetris.
Page: