Introversion software development time

[tangostorm]

However, you don't sound overly appreciative of Introversion's efforts and you seem to follow the "more file size/graphics = more quality" school of thought, which many around here (including myself) do not subscribe to.
.

You are right it seems, but it isn't necessary my opinion. I would simply post a topic for discussing this matter and listen how forum user think about it: the reference to graphic and megabytes were only "fake target".
I don't really appreciate persons that define me "as an arrogant asshole" both for the insult that it is not necessary, and because they were superficial and didn't understood my intention.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I think that introversion spends too much time for developing its games. One year or more for 20/30mb games with decent graphics, simple gameplay and/or poor 3d engine is not justifiable. Do you agree?[/u]

If you just wanted to hear what other had to say you shouldn't have presented your opinion so pointedly. You should have said something like:

"I have been thinking about how long Introversion spend developing their games. It seems like their games take a long time to develop given that none of them is particularly technically complicated. Do you think the long development time is just a product of the small size of Introversion or is it some other factor?"

[xander]

My intention was not to criticize but to develop an interesting discussion about this topic and i think that i'm going to succeed in this.

The problem, sir, is that you did criticize. You stated that IV spent too much time on Darwina, that the game had simple gameplay, only decent graphics, and a poor 3D engine. Those are criticisms. Your original post is not worded in such a way to engender discussion -- it is confrontational by its very nature. You would probably have been better served by trying to be more diplomatic in your language, as SBM suggested above.

xander

[tangostorm]

I think that introversion spends too much time for developing its games. One year or more for 20/30mb games with decent graphics, simple gameplay and/or poor 3d engine is not justifiable. Do you agree?[/u]

If you just wanted to hear what other had to say you shouldn't have presented your opinion so pointedly. You should have said something like:

"I have been thinking about how long Introversion spend developing their games. It seems like their games take a long time to develop given that none of them is particularly technically complicated. Do you think the long development time is just a product of the small size of Introversion or is it some other factor?"

You are right but i would prefer use a polemic way to see reaction from users.

[xander]

You are right but i would prefer use a polemic way to see reaction from users.

Well, the reaction that you saw was generally hostile. Does that answer your question? By phrasing the question as you did, you prevented the kind of discussion you desired, because you attacked something that is held in very high regard here: the quality of the time that Chris spends working on games. People here see attacks like that as personal, and responded in kind. So, rather than getting a discussion about time spent creating games (which seems to be the original intention), you aggressive phrasing turned it into a personal attack against you.

Care to try again?

xander

[Stewsburntmonkey]

You are right but i would prefer use a polemic way to see reaction from users.

You should have known what the reaction would be. . . Polemics annoy me. Their only purpose is to cause trouble.

[trickfred]

My response was in no way meant to be hostile; it was just a roundabout whay of saying "Don't judge a {man|independant game developer} until you've walked 1.61 kilometers in his shoes", and once you've developed your own program/game, you'd have a better understanding of the reasons behind long/short development times, and might not be so quick to decide that they took "too long". Personally, I think Darwinia could have used a longer development time, to add more modding features, but that's from my perspective as a modder after spending time working with the game. Obviously the game had to be released at the point that someone thought it was ready, and IV were those... er... someones.

[tangostorm]

You are right but i would prefer use a polemic way to see reaction from users.

Well, the reaction that you saw was generally hostile. Does that answer your question? By phrasing the question as you did, you prevented the kind of discussion you desired, because you attacked something that is held in very high regard here: the quality of the time that Chris spends working on games. People here see attacks like that as personal, and responded in kind. So, rather than getting a discussion about time spent creating games (which seems to be the original intention), you aggressive phrasing turned it into a personal attack against you.

Care to try again?

xander

i didn't know that people were so sensible (and aggressive) about this type of topic. Sorry if I offended someone.

[xander]

You are right but i would prefer usei didn't know that people were so sensible (and aggressive) about this type of topic. Sorry if I offended someone.

We are, and you did, but I am willing to forgive you.

Now, to answer the original (intended) question: Does development at IV take too long?

I think that there are several perspectives that you must think about when answering this question. From the standpoint of a player, any development time is too long. I want my games, and I want them now. However, this is an unreasonable point of view. In reality, I am willing to wait. The length of time that I am willing to wait is dependent upon the quality of the last game. I am still starting Darwinia just about every day. Thus, if Defcon were delayed for quite a while, I am still content with Darwinia. I can wait quite a bit longer, if I have to. The same could be said about Uplink, though I always thought of Uplink differently -- I got Uplink via ASW, and didn't really internalize the fact that it was not an ASW game. Thus, the next game from ASW was probably EV:Nova, or some such, which is what I was waiting for.

From the perspective of a modder, I think that Darwinia could have used a bit more polish. There are several systems that just don't seem to work in mods, others that are a bit dodgy, and some features that don't exist at all that would be nice to incorporate. More time in development may have meant more time for such features. However, we will never know. :) Now, I suppose it could be argued that all of these features should have been incorporated, and the game out in the same time frame. However, I think that would be impossible. While I don't have exact figures, I am sure that Darwinia took several thousand man hours to put together, and Chris was the only one coding. Getting out the door faster may have been impossible.

Also, we should examine the perspective of the publisher, and the creator. Fortunately for IV, those are one and the same. In a large studio, management or publishers may be pushing for earlier releases. This can lead to massive bugs and other problems. On the other hand, IV doesn't have this kind of external pressure -- they don't have to release a game until they are good and ready. While this doesn't prevent all bugs from occuring, it can cut down on them, and create a higher quality game. In that regard, I want IV to take all the time they need to get their games out.

So, to answer your question: no, I do not think that IV takes to much time to get games out the door. They are doing just fine.

xander

[Darksun]

To be honest, it's quite quick considering it's just a couple of guys working on each game. There were 6 years between half life and half life 2, we're still waiting on DNF and counting at what, 10 years now? Granted, these games are more complex/content code wise, but these are fairly large studios we're talking about.

Introversion could probably push out repetitive clones faster, but they don't want to. If you look at the Darwinia development diary, you'll find that a lot of the development was just trying different things out until they had a decent game.

[vooshy]

well since everyone else has thrown their two cents... heres my two pence.

If you dont like IV's style dont use it, there are plenty of games willing to sacrifice schedule for poor gaming. I personally like IV Games, Never got into Darwinia, but I can see why it was made, and can justify for time for product.

The small elements, that take up the most time, are what make IV games good and also other games that follow the same principle.

[NeoThermic]

If you look at the Darwinia development diary, you'll find that a lot of the development was just trying different things out until they had a decent game.

I think the thoughtprocess reached this point first:

'Oh shit we need to think of a final concept rather than messing about as we are running really low on money!'



NeoThermic