A plea to the good folks of Introversion: We can wait.

[RoystonD12]

I can't speak for anybody else here, but I for one would definately rather wait a while longer for a stable and solid game to be released than have it released earlier and be full of holes and need patches.

Therefore I beseech thee at introversion to take your time with darwinia and PLEASE don't release it before you are completely satisfied with it. One example I'm thinking of, is the fact you are considering releasing Darwinia as single player only then patch it to make it multiplayer enabled. I honestly don't think this is a good idea.

Obviously some small things are almost certainly going to slip through the QA net that will require patching, post-release, but these big things should be implemented before release.

Think of Uplink, Chris, you said yourself there were so many things you wanted to add to it that you didn't have time to do, stuff that I thought was really cool, such as the security cameras, and LANS (though you did add that in Nakatomi, which was appreciated). I can also understand how having major updates in patches such as Nakatomi might rekindle flagging interest in a game, but is it really worth the price of releasing a game you're not totally satisfied with?

Take that time now with darwinia, I for one will be thankful for it.

[Epsilon]

Ahh, perhaps a somewhat controversial topic, as I see the vote count rising yet the reply count remains low.

I cast my vote in favour of RoystonD12 and his views. If I think about all the times people have come into irc.uplinkcorp.net #uplink asking their favourite resident halfop why their user profile doesn't work with the 1.31 patch, and I have to tell them they have to start from scratch and watch their digital faces fall, I shed a tear for games released while incomplete.

Obviously from the dev point of view there are deadlines to meet, unforseen events cropping up, etc, etc, I'm sure there are a million things, and pushing the release date back further and further may hurt your credibility (damn you Romero/Newell/Carmack, where was/is Daikatana/HL2/Doom3?).

But still, when it comes to a game like Darwinia where there is already a captured audience from a previous work of brilliance, I think it would mean more to us (the above mentioned "caputred audience") to wait for a complete package.

It would to me anyways.

[piratebob]

I want a third option on the poll. I'll happily wait longer for a more stable and finished product, but I want that product faster if the hangup is game play options. Having a patch come out, to expand game play options, for a solid game I enjoy, for me, is more exciting than Christmas, birthdays, and the Easter Bunny all rolled into one.

As an aside if programs weren't released until the programmers were completely satisfied they'd never be released.

[Hektik sniper]

waiting is alllways better for the game, Take for example ETM. It had strict deadlines because of the film tye in and it sucked!. Take as long as you need IV.

[Kedgisgo]

I think i can safely say that i would wait a few extra months for development before i get my hands on Darwinia.
the thought of this sends me back to when i first saw Uplink on its little shelf in the second hand section of the store... i bought it as soon as i saw it... it was a gem of a game until.. LOCKUP! SYSTEM FAILURE! CRASH!
then i went to the Uplink forums to report the bug, thankfully someone beat me too it far in advance and a patch was available for download.. 2 hours on my crapy home connection of about 12k (frighhtening i know).
so this is why i would rather wait... because getting all these patches is just too difficult...

note: however, after i got the patches i played till my eyes bled

[sweaty bob]

I Agree too.

I wouldn't mind waiting say a extra month or two so they can get it as bug free as poss. heck their'll be a few bugs like with every game but i don't mind about that

I would rarther they took their time and got it how they would like it and do everything they can to make us buy it

[edd8990]

We have waited a long time between Uplink and Darwinia. A few more months wont hurt. It is better to wait and have a quality game, than get a rushed, half-finished buggy game.

Half-Life 2 has slipped for a YEAR. Whilst this was origionally blamed on the hackers, they have now said it would have slipped NINE MONTHS anyway without being hacked. They could have released it on time, but it would have been worse. I am happy to wait as long as it takes for a good game to come out.

[elDiablo]

Of course most people are gonna say wait.

Who would want a game that crashes all the time, and when it dies, takes your save game with it? Games like that, are by definition, bad. And obviously, they will (and should) get bad reviews. Thus, they will sell less, and all that time and effort would be wasted.

I'm not saying get rid of all the bugs, that is impossible! But getting the game to work at an acceptable level is what is need. A few minor bugs that are too big a deal, they're ok.

Also, an aside about games slipping: Games will nearly always slip in development, mostly because of unforseen problem. This is why they slip, cos no one saw the problems coming! I personally dont think that its right when people get angry at developers whos games slip from an estimated release time or whatever. Ok, the developers could have given a better idea, but usually it isnt their fault. If a game slips for years, then yes, thats bad management, but what can a company do? Just drop the project after 3/4 years of work on it? Who's gonna pay them for doing nothing for 3/4 years?!

What I'm saying is to let developers take time (as RoystonD12 said), and not get angry at them when games slip. You should try making a game before you critise how a company is working!

[Me300]

I think that longer QA times are a great idea, just so long as they don't go overboard.
As Eps said, don't take forever on them, but try to have a decent product out.
Case in point: Operation Flashpoint.
I think it is a great game, and I rather like playing it. But it was rather buggy from the beginning, and it still is even after numerous patches.
But I trust Chris and the rest of the IV team to do what they think is best, and I'm almost certain that they'll have the community's backing on it.
And that's my $0.02.

[Chris]

Very interesting discussion.

I'm absolutely in agreement that patches for nasty bugs are very bad news for all concerned. We still get bug reports from people running version 1.0 of uplink - bugs that were fixed on 11th October 2001, 10 days after release. We beta tested Uplink for just 2 weeks with around 10 people, and we've paid the price for our own naivity on that issue. Even with a game like Uplink, we needed much more testing before release.

With Darwinia our beta phase is set to last three months and will involve over 100 testers. More if neccesary. Since the very start of this project we've been much more concerned with stability and quality. And we won't be shipping the game until all the bugs are fixed.

Having said that, I also believe patches for new gameplay and features are a fine idea. I'm actually quite suprised people would rather wait. Take for example the multiplayer patch. Darwinia doesn't lend itself directly to multiplayer play - this new feature is going to require a lot of programming and a great deal of gameplay design, not to mention new levels that require more than one player to complete. It's almost like making a new game using the existing technology. And it will be a different game to the Darwinia we plan to release in October - the balance and feel of the game will be quite different.

The fact is that adding this feature will take 1 or 2 months, and will mean the entire game will need re-testing to make sure we didn't break anything or mess up the balance of the single player game. The beta phase would need to be around a month longer to test all the extra levels and stuff required for the multiplayer version. You're looking at a total delay time of 3 or 4 months when you take that into account. I don't see any reason to delay the Darwinia launch for 3 or 4 months in order to fit this extra feature in, especially since Darwinia does not need the multiplayer - fundamentally it's a single player game.

In any case, the multiplayer is one feature amoung three that we have planned, each of which is quite a lot of work. And Introversion has new ideas every day. We could work on Darwinia forever if we wanted. You don't really want to wait that long right...?

[Hektik sniper]

Chris, personally i would wait forever for the chance to beat some of the folks from #uplink at Darwinia.

[edd8990]

I would rather wait for the single player and have multiplayer as a patch. That gives me time to get good before I have to face the rest of you .

[Ozymandias IV]

I beg to differ. A multiplayer patch would be a considerably large file, at least for my pathetically slow modem. Also edd, don't you think that the rest of us would also be getting good at the same time?

[elDiablo]

Out of interest then, when the MP patch is made (if it is), and those other two "extras"... will there be another beta phase for each? And if so, will the beta testers from phase 1 or phase 2 be asked to come back?

Just a thought =/

[edd8990]

I beg to differ. A multiplayer patch would be a considerably large file, at least for my pathetically slow modem. Also edd, don't you think that the rest of us would also be getting good at the same time?

Judging by the size that peole are predicting the Actual game will be, an MP patch would not be two large. Or, get a friend on BB to download it and burn it onto CD.

And yes, you would be getting better but at least I would have time to learn how the game works and not look like a total N00b in MP.