The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Is development time really taken seriously? Is it a good thing? I think so, although other critics would say not.
The first thing that the developers do is create a storyboard. This is like a plan for an essay that you write at school. The developers get an idea for a game and scribble down the idea on a piece of paper or something like that, and a storyboard is made using that idea, keeping the idea fresh in their memory, so they don't forget it, and giving examples of how characters and maps would look. To me, this is the most important stage of development. It means that they have something to work from, so they don't run out of ideas or so that they don't start veering off-track with the plot.
When the developers start producing the game, after all that thought over how it will play, what the maps and characters will look like etc., they then start to construct it. Colours are usually rendered perfectly, so you don't get the odd patch of black in a field of grass, for a stupid example, unless it is supposed to be there for a reason. The lazy ones will just make a square of one shade of green for a field. Other, average developers would do the same, but add extra shades of green and yellow to the field to make it a little bit more realistic, but the least-lazy ones would draw every single blade of grass and texture each individual one, just like they did in Shrek, the film, although this would really put a strain on the available memory for the rest of the game. And, yes I know, I always bring this idea of pointy things because of lack of polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things. A lot of developers prefer to have slightly pointy objects, so that they don't use up all the memory creating one object or character, so you will get characters with blockheads or cars with wheels which you could use to pick your nose, or skinheads like 8-ball in GTA3 looking like one of the Coneheads, but who cares? As long as there is enough memory left for a quality game to be produced with a descent length, so you don't finish it in ten minutes, which doesn't crash or freeze whenever you fire a bullet. And there has to be enough memory left for the game to be able to run at all, especially on the PC. How much cash would a company get for selling a game which didn't run? Their phones would be ringing all day with complaints from the other end.
And then comes the stage of presenting it at Spaceworld and stuff like that. Once the game has been perfected and the developers are happy with it, it's time to see what effect it has on the crowds. Obviously, if it has been anticipated for ages as being the best game around, it'll be the life of the party, and beating the opposition is everything for a games developer. If it is a success, then they have to start manufacturing the game for the public, but before they do that, each magazine has to get its own copy of the game for reviewing and giving screenshots. What better way to boost the eagerness of the public who are waiting for it than to show off just how great it is? Once that is all done and dusted, it's off to the manufacturing plant and into the shops where people like SR can make hundreds of quids just from that one idea, if it is successful enough.
Development of a game can take ages. Take Perfect Dark for example. It was started just after the release of Goldeneye, so it must of been in development for quite some time, about three or four years, I think, and it turned out to be a great success. And Hybrid Heaven, also on the N64, took three years to create, and even though the graphics weren't great, it was a truly brilliant game to play. So, is a long development time important? Yes, I think so.
But, as I said earlier, some critics would think differently. You always get at least one who has a different opinion. There has to be SOME development time in order to get a game in the first place, and which would you prefer? A game that was delayed for ages, but once released, was absolutely great in every way? Or would you prefer rushing a game out quickly? Therefore not fine-tuning it, so you get the game out early, but it's a hunk of rubbish.
I personally wouldn't be bothered. If the game came out early, it wouldn't bother me, as long as the game is good and I don't complete it or get bored with it in about ten minutes. What about you? What's your view on this?
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
The first thing that the developers do is create a storyboard. This is like a plan for an essay that you write at school. The developers get an idea for a game and scribble down the idea on a piece of paper or something like that, and a storyboard is made using that idea, keeping the idea fresh in their memory, so they don't forget it, and giving examples of how characters and maps would look. To me, this is the most important stage of development. It means that they have something to work from, so they don't run out of ideas or so that they don't start veering off-track with the plot.
When the developers start producing the game, after all that thought over how it will play, what the maps and characters will look like etc., they then start to construct it. Colours are usually rendered perfectly, so you don't get the odd patch of black in a field of grass, for a stupid example, unless it is supposed to be there for a reason. The lazy ones will just make a square of one shade of green for a field. Other, average developers would do the same, but add extra shades of green and yellow to the field to make it a little bit more realistic, but the least-lazy ones would draw every single blade of grass and texture each individual one, just like they did in Shrek, the film, although this would really put a strain on the available memory for the rest of the game. And, yes I know, I always bring this idea of pointy things because of lack of polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things. A lot of developers prefer to have slightly pointy objects, so that they don't use up all the memory creating one object or character, so you will get characters with blockheads or cars with wheels which you could use to pick your nose, or skinheads like 8-ball in GTA3 looking like one of the Coneheads, but who cares? As long as there is enough memory left for a quality game to be produced with a descent length, so you don't finish it in ten minutes, which doesn't crash or freeze whenever you fire a bullet. And there has to be enough memory left for the game to be able to run at all, especially on the PC. How much cash would a company get for selling a game which didn't run? Their phones would be ringing all day with complaints from the other end.
And then comes the stage of presenting it at Spaceworld and stuff like that. Once the game has been perfected and the developers are happy with it, it's time to see what effect it has on the crowds. Obviously, if it has been anticipated for ages as being the best game around, it'll be the life of the party, and beating the opposition is everything for a games developer. If it is a success, then they have to start manufacturing the game for the public, but before they do that, each magazine has to get its own copy of the game for reviewing and giving screenshots. What better way to boost the eagerness of the public who are waiting for it than to show off just how great it is? Once that is all done and dusted, it's off to the manufacturing plant and into the shops where people like SR can make hundreds of quids just from that one idea, if it is successful enough.
Development of a game can take ages. Take Perfect Dark for example. It was started just after the release of Goldeneye, so it must of been in development for quite some time, about three or four years, I think, and it turned out to be a great success. And Hybrid Heaven, also on the N64, took three years to create, and even though the graphics weren't great, it was a truly brilliant game to play. So, is a long development time important? Yes, I think so.
But, as I said earlier, some critics would think differently. You always get at least one who has a different opinion. There has to be SOME development time in order to get a game in the first place, and which would you prefer? A game that was delayed for ages, but once released, was absolutely great in every way? Or would you prefer rushing a game out quickly? Therefore not fine-tuning it, so you get the game out early, but it's a hunk of rubbish.
I personally wouldn't be bothered. If the game came out early, it wouldn't bother me, as long as the game is good and I don't complete it or get bored with it in about ten minutes. What about you? What's your view on this?
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
RM18 wrote:
> Good post there.
>
> It depends on the developer/producer really. Some developers are under
> pressure to release a game at a certain time to cut costs/ meet a
> certain market e.g. Christmas, some have intentionally short
> development time to meet a certain market (Tomb Raider and FIFA games
> come to mind here). And there are the developers that really want the
> best for the players - companies like Rare and Nintendo that release a
> game when it's ready.
You raise an interesting argument there. Because, baring FIFA in mind, this game was quick to be released because it isn't as complex as a game like, say, Metal Gear Solid 2 or Perfect Dark. Only a few basic polygons are used to create players and stadiums. You might notice that the camera stays a particular distance zoomed out for two reasons. One, so that you can see around where the ball will go, and two, so that you don't see the fact that it isn't as detailed or as complex as you might think. The crowds look like they have all been made individually, each spectator built up with loads of polygons, when actually, the crowd is just one straight polygon, textured to look 3D-ish.
And yes, sonme games are rushed out so that they hit the shelves before Christmas or whenever, but does it really matter if it is released for that particular date? I know it's an extra bomus if they do, because lots will be bought for Christmas as a present, but if the game is wanted really badly by a person, they will still go out and buy it anyway, even if it is just after Christmas, after they've got loads more.
> Good post there.
>
> It depends on the developer/producer really. Some developers are under
> pressure to release a game at a certain time to cut costs/ meet a
> certain market e.g. Christmas, some have intentionally short
> development time to meet a certain market (Tomb Raider and FIFA games
> come to mind here). And there are the developers that really want the
> best for the players - companies like Rare and Nintendo that release a
> game when it's ready.
You raise an interesting argument there. Because, baring FIFA in mind, this game was quick to be released because it isn't as complex as a game like, say, Metal Gear Solid 2 or Perfect Dark. Only a few basic polygons are used to create players and stadiums. You might notice that the camera stays a particular distance zoomed out for two reasons. One, so that you can see around where the ball will go, and two, so that you don't see the fact that it isn't as detailed or as complex as you might think. The crowds look like they have all been made individually, each spectator built up with loads of polygons, when actually, the crowd is just one straight polygon, textured to look 3D-ish.
And yes, sonme games are rushed out so that they hit the shelves before Christmas or whenever, but does it really matter if it is released for that particular date? I know it's an extra bomus if they do, because lots will be bought for Christmas as a present, but if the game is wanted really badly by a person, they will still go out and buy it anyway, even if it is just after Christmas, after they've got loads more.
wow.......brilliant. GAD. definatly. GAD...
Good post there.
It depends on the developer/producer really. Some developers are under pressure to release a game at a certain time to cut costs/ meet a certain market e.g. Christmas, some have intentionally short development time to meet a certain market (Tomb Raider and FIFA games come to mind here). And there are the developers that really want the best for the players - companies like Rare and Nintendo that release a game when it's ready.
:d
It depends on the developer/producer really. Some developers are under pressure to release a game at a certain time to cut costs/ meet a certain market e.g. Christmas, some have intentionally short development time to meet a certain market (Tomb Raider and FIFA games come to mind here). And there are the developers that really want the best for the players - companies like Rare and Nintendo that release a game when it's ready.
:d
Yes, you raise a few good points there. I've noticed in magazines that they don't give an absolute, accurate release date until it is right up close to the time of release. You get a TBC or just a month rather than an exact date like May 3rd.
And, yes, taking time to perfect a game doesn't always eliminate each and every bug. I mean, take Perfect Dark, for example. Development on it had begun just after the release of Goldeneye, which was four years back. It took three-four years to make and perfect, but there are still loads of glitches.
And, yes, taking time to perfect a game doesn't always eliminate each and every bug. I mean, take Perfect Dark, for example. Development on it had begun just after the release of Goldeneye, which was four years back. It took three-four years to make and perfect, but there are still loads of glitches.
You have to have the right balance between development time and delays. The easiest way to do this is to not announce the game until you know that it's nearly completed. This is what I don't understand about the industry.
Of course, the idea of building up the hype by delaying a title is a well-known tactic that games companies use, but it can also backfire as the customer almost always expects a AAA title with no bugs and the best graphics ever at the end of the day.
So, yes developers should take time over their titles to get them right, but when it comes down to it, do they really 'get them right' in the end after all that time? Look at Black and White, delayed for ages and wanted by so many, but look at the bugs that everyone found when it was finally released.
Of course, the idea of building up the hype by delaying a title is a well-known tactic that games companies use, but it can also backfire as the customer almost always expects a AAA title with no bugs and the best graphics ever at the end of the day.
So, yes developers should take time over their titles to get them right, but when it comes down to it, do they really 'get them right' in the end after all that time? Look at Black and White, delayed for ages and wanted by so many, but look at the bugs that everyone found when it was finally released.
Is development time really taken seriously? Is it a good thing? I think so, although other critics would say not.
The first thing that the developers do is create a storyboard. This is like a plan for an essay that you write at school. The developers get an idea for a game and scribble down the idea on a piece of paper or something like that, and a storyboard is made using that idea, keeping the idea fresh in their memory, so they don't forget it, and giving examples of how characters and maps would look. To me, this is the most important stage of development. It means that they have something to work from, so they don't run out of ideas or so that they don't start veering off-track with the plot.
When the developers start producing the game, after all that thought over how it will play, what the maps and characters will look like etc., they then start to construct it. Colours are usually rendered perfectly, so you don't get the odd patch of black in a field of grass, for a stupid example, unless it is supposed to be there for a reason. The lazy ones will just make a square of one shade of green for a field. Other, average developers would do the same, but add extra shades of green and yellow to the field to make it a little bit more realistic, but the least-lazy ones would draw every single blade of grass and texture each individual one, just like they did in Shrek, the film, although this would really put a strain on the available memory for the rest of the game. And, yes I know, I always bring this idea of pointy things because of lack of polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things. A lot of developers prefer to have slightly pointy objects, so that they don't use up all the memory creating one object or character, so you will get characters with blockheads or cars with wheels which you could use to pick your nose, or skinheads like 8-ball in GTA3 looking like one of the Coneheads, but who cares? As long as there is enough memory left for a quality game to be produced with a descent length, so you don't finish it in ten minutes, which doesn't crash or freeze whenever you fire a bullet. And there has to be enough memory left for the game to be able to run at all, especially on the PC. How much cash would a company get for selling a game which didn't run? Their phones would be ringing all day with complaints from the other end.
And then comes the stage of presenting it at Spaceworld and stuff like that. Once the game has been perfected and the developers are happy with it, it's time to see what effect it has on the crowds. Obviously, if it has been anticipated for ages as being the best game around, it'll be the life of the party, and beating the opposition is everything for a games developer. If it is a success, then they have to start manufacturing the game for the public, but before they do that, each magazine has to get its own copy of the game for reviewing and giving screenshots. What better way to boost the eagerness of the public who are waiting for it than to show off just how great it is? Once that is all done and dusted, it's off to the manufacturing plant and into the shops where people like SR can make hundreds of quids just from that one idea, if it is successful enough.
Development of a game can take ages. Take Perfect Dark for example. It was started just after the release of Goldeneye, so it must of been in development for quite some time, about three or four years, I think, and it turned out to be a great success. And Hybrid Heaven, also on the N64, took three years to create, and even though the graphics weren't great, it was a truly brilliant game to play. So, is a long development time important? Yes, I think so.
But, as I said earlier, some critics would think differently. You always get at least one who has a different opinion. There has to be SOME development time in order to get a game in the first place, and which would you prefer? A game that was delayed for ages, but once released, was absolutely great in every way? Or would you prefer rushing a game out quickly? Therefore not fine-tuning it, so you get the game out early, but it's a hunk of rubbish.
I personally wouldn't be bothered. If the game came out early, it wouldn't bother me, as long as the game is good and I don't complete it or get bored with it in about ten minutes. What about you? What's your view on this?
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain
The first thing that the developers do is create a storyboard. This is like a plan for an essay that you write at school. The developers get an idea for a game and scribble down the idea on a piece of paper or something like that, and a storyboard is made using that idea, keeping the idea fresh in their memory, so they don't forget it, and giving examples of how characters and maps would look. To me, this is the most important stage of development. It means that they have something to work from, so they don't run out of ideas or so that they don't start veering off-track with the plot.
When the developers start producing the game, after all that thought over how it will play, what the maps and characters will look like etc., they then start to construct it. Colours are usually rendered perfectly, so you don't get the odd patch of black in a field of grass, for a stupid example, unless it is supposed to be there for a reason. The lazy ones will just make a square of one shade of green for a field. Other, average developers would do the same, but add extra shades of green and yellow to the field to make it a little bit more realistic, but the least-lazy ones would draw every single blade of grass and texture each individual one, just like they did in Shrek, the film, although this would really put a strain on the available memory for the rest of the game. And, yes I know, I always bring this idea of pointy things because of lack of polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things. A lot of developers prefer to have slightly pointy objects, so that they don't use up all the memory creating one object or character, so you will get characters with blockheads or cars with wheels which you could use to pick your nose, or skinheads like 8-ball in GTA3 looking like one of the Coneheads, but who cares? As long as there is enough memory left for a quality game to be produced with a descent length, so you don't finish it in ten minutes, which doesn't crash or freeze whenever you fire a bullet. And there has to be enough memory left for the game to be able to run at all, especially on the PC. How much cash would a company get for selling a game which didn't run? Their phones would be ringing all day with complaints from the other end.
And then comes the stage of presenting it at Spaceworld and stuff like that. Once the game has been perfected and the developers are happy with it, it's time to see what effect it has on the crowds. Obviously, if it has been anticipated for ages as being the best game around, it'll be the life of the party, and beating the opposition is everything for a games developer. If it is a success, then they have to start manufacturing the game for the public, but before they do that, each magazine has to get its own copy of the game for reviewing and giving screenshots. What better way to boost the eagerness of the public who are waiting for it than to show off just how great it is? Once that is all done and dusted, it's off to the manufacturing plant and into the shops where people like SR can make hundreds of quids just from that one idea, if it is successful enough.
Development of a game can take ages. Take Perfect Dark for example. It was started just after the release of Goldeneye, so it must of been in development for quite some time, about three or four years, I think, and it turned out to be a great success. And Hybrid Heaven, also on the N64, took three years to create, and even though the graphics weren't great, it was a truly brilliant game to play. So, is a long development time important? Yes, I think so.
But, as I said earlier, some critics would think differently. You always get at least one who has a different opinion. There has to be SOME development time in order to get a game in the first place, and which would you prefer? A game that was delayed for ages, but once released, was absolutely great in every way? Or would you prefer rushing a game out quickly? Therefore not fine-tuning it, so you get the game out early, but it's a hunk of rubbish.
I personally wouldn't be bothered. If the game came out early, it wouldn't bother me, as long as the game is good and I don't complete it or get bored with it in about ten minutes. What about you? What's your view on this?
Thanks for reading
Happy days
Twain