<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Teardown</title>
	<atom:link href="http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/</link>
	<description>The Journal of Gamer Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 08:17:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh W</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62270</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62270</guid>
		<description>This is an old post, but I thought I&#039;d add my view of the source of the problem in Sultan&#039;s post; the latter games are running on cashflow issues that force them to get it out:

The simple discrepancy between constant wages and big returns at the end of development means that non-established companies need to focus on small, frequent returns. But fashion and buzz mean that you get much more money from a big release. Now if graphics is a pre-requisite for buzz more than gameplay, then the best way to do that is to make a crappy but awesome looking game. If demos sell stuff not magazine/website pics and trailers, then time length gets cut, or you develop for a phone where graphics can be bad.

Interest payments and fading savings push you to crash something, and it&#039;s generally wherever it will hurt the least in terms of starting sales. With the hope that when that cash comes back in thanks to the big release and stabalises you, you can fix whatever you couldn&#039;t before. And hope the gamers forgive you.

There are alternative models, like cheaper pre-orders when the game is still in development, but these have not yet got off the ground much, and tend to keep the same problems with interest payments as debt funded development, except that you are in debt to hardcore early-adopter customers instead of banks or publishers. Naturally this tends to produce a different kind of game!

In a certain respect many games already work like this, in that if you buy a game you will spend the first month helping to finish it&#039;s testing, but this is without the extra influence that the other model would give to the guinee pigs!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an old post, but I thought I&#8217;d add my view of the source of the problem in Sultan&#8217;s post; the latter games are running on cashflow issues that force them to get it out:</p>
<p>The simple discrepancy between constant wages and big returns at the end of development means that non-established companies need to focus on small, frequent returns. But fashion and buzz mean that you get much more money from a big release. Now if graphics is a pre-requisite for buzz more than gameplay, then the best way to do that is to make a crappy but awesome looking game. If demos sell stuff not magazine/website pics and trailers, then time length gets cut, or you develop for a phone where graphics can be bad.</p>
<p>Interest payments and fading savings push you to crash something, and it&#8217;s generally wherever it will hurt the least in terms of starting sales. With the hope that when that cash comes back in thanks to the big release and stabalises you, you can fix whatever you couldn&#8217;t before. And hope the gamers forgive you.</p>
<p>There are alternative models, like cheaper pre-orders when the game is still in development, but these have not yet got off the ground much, and tend to keep the same problems with interest payments as debt funded development, except that you are in debt to hardcore early-adopter customers instead of banks or publishers. Naturally this tends to produce a different kind of game!</p>
<p>In a certain respect many games already work like this, in that if you buy a game you will spend the first month helping to finish it&#8217;s testing, but this is without the extra influence that the other model would give to the guinee pigs!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ultimate D&#38;D Universe &#124; Critical Hits</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62269</link>
		<dc:creator>Ultimate D&#38;D Universe &#124; Critical Hits</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62269</guid>
		<description>[...] process is similar to The Teardown, since the goal is to improve by not being confined by anything previously established, only the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] process is similar to The Teardown, since the goal is to improve by not being confined by anything previously established, only the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OriginalSultan</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62268</link>
		<dc:creator>OriginalSultan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62268</guid>
		<description>@ Abe

I agree that the video game industry as a whole has a tendency to release shoddy games, especially during the early part of a new console&#039;s lifespan, just to &#039;finish&#039; them and get them out on the market.

But there are notable exceptions.  The Metal Gear Solid series, for instance, takes a long time to release a new game.  The last two playstation consoles have not had a metal gear solid game available at the time of their release.  But when the games came out, boy were they great!

Another great example is Blizzard, with the Warcraft and Starcraft series (can&#039;t comment on WoW cause I don&#039;t play that).  There is a long time between games in the series, but every game is a very well designed game - usually a classic.

So there are still &quot;real&quot; video game designers/design companies out there that are willing to wait seemingly forever to release a new game, only to have it turn out to be totally worth the wait.  But there are also a lot of &#039;get it to the stores now&#039; designers/companies that are more interested in making an acceptable game that reaps huge profits instead of making an honest-to-God good game.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Abe</p>
<p>I agree that the video game industry as a whole has a tendency to release shoddy games, especially during the early part of a new console&#8217;s lifespan, just to &#8216;finish&#8217; them and get them out on the market.</p>
<p>But there are notable exceptions.  The Metal Gear Solid series, for instance, takes a long time to release a new game.  The last two playstation consoles have not had a metal gear solid game available at the time of their release.  But when the games came out, boy were they great!</p>
<p>Another great example is Blizzard, with the Warcraft and Starcraft series (can&#8217;t comment on WoW cause I don&#8217;t play that).  There is a long time between games in the series, but every game is a very well designed game &#8211; usually a classic.</p>
<p>So there are still &#8220;real&#8221; video game designers/design companies out there that are willing to wait seemingly forever to release a new game, only to have it turn out to be totally worth the wait.  But there are also a lot of &#8216;get it to the stores now&#8217; designers/companies that are more interested in making an acceptable game that reaps huge profits instead of making an honest-to-God good game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abe</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62267</link>
		<dc:creator>Abe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62267</guid>
		<description>I hope I&#039;m not bringing up old issues, but

Speaking of &quot;commitment to finishing over quality.&quot;

Does the video game industry&#039;s manual fixation on opening day numbers and pre-release hype fuel the majority of their rushed and shoddy titles?

I&#039;m glad that WotC operate in a realm where gradual sales are acceptable.

But while many video game companies would argue they live in a different word, I wonder if that is a world of their own making.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope I&#8217;m not bringing up old issues, but</p>
<p>Speaking of &#8220;commitment to finishing over quality.&#8221;</p>
<p>Does the video game industry&#8217;s manual fixation on opening day numbers and pre-release hype fuel the majority of their rushed and shoddy titles?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad that WotC operate in a realm where gradual sales are acceptable.</p>
<p>But while many video game companies would argue they live in a different word, I wonder if that is a world of their own making.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheMainEvent</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62266</link>
		<dc:creator>TheMainEvent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62266</guid>
		<description>Tearing you own work down shows self-awareness and commitment to quality rather than a commitment to &#039;finishing.&#039;  I would have never, ever torn down a high school English paper because the objective was to complete it rather than work anything notable.  By the same token, there is an entire completed novel sitting on my hard drive that I&#039;ve shit-canned.  It was rife with plot holes and hackneyed developments (largely because I started it in High School... remind anyone else of when the read Ergaon?).  Anyway, I realized that the great story wasn&#039;t the one I wrote, but events that formed the background of that original novel.  Its a painful process, but you&#039;re better off (in all creative fields) going with your gut if it just isn&#039;t satisfying you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tearing you own work down shows self-awareness and commitment to quality rather than a commitment to &#8216;finishing.&#8217;  I would have never, ever torn down a high school English paper because the objective was to complete it rather than work anything notable.  By the same token, there is an entire completed novel sitting on my hard drive that I&#8217;ve shit-canned.  It was rife with plot holes and hackneyed developments (largely because I started it in High School&#8230; remind anyone else of when the read Ergaon?).  Anyway, I realized that the great story wasn&#8217;t the one I wrote, but events that formed the background of that original novel.  Its a painful process, but you&#8217;re better off (in all creative fields) going with your gut if it just isn&#8217;t satisfying you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e on 4e D&#38;D: If you build it, they will come. If you tear it down and rebuild it, they&#8217;ll be pissed for a while, but eventually they&#8217;ll get over it and come.</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62265</link>
		<dc:creator>e on 4e D&#38;D: If you build it, they will come. If you tear it down and rebuild it, they&#8217;ll be pissed for a while, but eventually they&#8217;ll get over it and come.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62265</guid>
		<description>[...] over at Critical Hits had a great post on Friday about tearing down a game and recreating it in hopes of making it [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] over at Critical Hits had a great post on Friday about tearing down a game and recreating it in hopes of making it [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bartoneus</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62264</link>
		<dc:creator>Bartoneus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62264</guid>
		<description>For me it really just displays that there are people at Wizards who care about things other than simply making money.  They realize that improving the core game of D&amp;D will make them more in the long run because they&#039;re trying to make it a better game and not just hack out content that doesn&#039;t solve any of the problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me it really just displays that there are people at Wizards who care about things other than simply making money.  They realize that improving the core game of D&#038;D will make them more in the long run because they&#8217;re trying to make it a better game and not just hack out content that doesn&#8217;t solve any of the problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scypher</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62263</link>
		<dc:creator>Scypher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62263</guid>
		<description>Agreed. I&#039;m of the opinion that a good portion of 3rd Edition needed reworking. The real kicker in redesigning this kind of game is that there&#039;s such a vast variety of experiences with it -- I may not have liked certain mechanical aspects of my game sessions, yet there are probably many many others who have no complaints at all.

Anyway, I&#039;m also glad to see Wizards ballsy enough to do such a heavy redesign, and what they&#039;ve showed us so far looks promising. Whether it can stand as solidly a few years down the road remains to be seen, but I guess my game group and I will just find out for ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. I&#8217;m of the opinion that a good portion of 3rd Edition needed reworking. The real kicker in redesigning this kind of game is that there&#8217;s such a vast variety of experiences with it &#8212; I may not have liked certain mechanical aspects of my game sessions, yet there are probably many many others who have no complaints at all.</p>
<p>Anyway, I&#8217;m also glad to see Wizards ballsy enough to do such a heavy redesign, and what they&#8217;ve showed us so far looks promising. Whether it can stand as solidly a few years down the road remains to be seen, but I guess my game group and I will just find out for ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Game</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62262</link>
		<dc:creator>The Game</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:01:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62262</guid>
		<description>That is, of course, what I meant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is, of course, what I meant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62261</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62261</guid>
		<description>Do you mean the latter, not the former? As it is you say you prefer the B+ approach, then go on to seemingly laud the teardown approach... I&#039;m confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you mean the latter, not the former? As it is you say you prefer the B+ approach, then go on to seemingly laud the teardown approach&#8230; I&#8217;m confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Game</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62260</link>
		<dc:creator>The Game</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62260</guid>
		<description>Whereas I&#039;d put the % that needed fixing much, much higher. Plus I&#039;d also argue that fixing 2% doesn&#039;t require releasing a new edition.

As far as future killer combos... yes, there&#039;s going to be bugs for sure, but enough to necessitate a new edition? We&#039;ll see. However, the simpler a ruleset is, the less chance you get hidden bugs like that. Also, 4e is a much more exception based model, which means you can just adjust the exceptions instead of tweaking the core system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whereas I&#8217;d put the % that needed fixing much, much higher. Plus I&#8217;d also argue that fixing 2% doesn&#8217;t require releasing a new edition.</p>
<p>As far as future killer combos&#8230; yes, there&#8217;s going to be bugs for sure, but enough to necessitate a new edition? We&#8217;ll see. However, the simpler a ruleset is, the less chance you get hidden bugs like that. Also, 4e is a much more exception based model, which means you can just adjust the exceptions instead of tweaking the core system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greywulf</title>
		<link>http://critical-hits.com/2008/04/25/the-teardown/#comment-62259</link>
		<dc:creator>greywulf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=1458#comment-62259</guid>
		<description>Great minds and all that. I just said pretty much the same thing in a comment over on ChattyDM&#039;s blog, but with a slightly different slant.

The way I see it, 98% of 3.5e worked well with only 2% needing fixing. That&#039;s not a reason to do a re-write and risk introducing new bugs. If D&amp;d were an application and me the business analyst (my day job), I&#039;d advise against it.

We&#039;re going to need a new edition to fix the new, as yet unknown, problems very, very soon down the line. There&#039;s going to be killer combos that the designers haven&#039;t spotted, spells that are too powerful and classes that are over- or over-powered in actual play. 3rd Edition has been through all that already.

4th Edition though, is a whole new beastie.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great minds and all that. I just said pretty much the same thing in a comment over on ChattyDM&#8217;s blog, but with a slightly different slant.</p>
<p>The way I see it, 98% of 3.5e worked well with only 2% needing fixing. That&#8217;s not a reason to do a re-write and risk introducing new bugs. If D&amp;d were an application and me the business analyst (my day job), I&#8217;d advise against it.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re going to need a new edition to fix the new, as yet unknown, problems very, very soon down the line. There&#8217;s going to be killer combos that the designers haven&#8217;t spotted, spells that are too powerful and classes that are over- or over-powered in actual play. 3rd Edition has been through all that already.</p>
<p>4th Edition though, is a whole new beastie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

