It's interesting to note at least one phenomenon in the game development world: Blizzard Entertainment.

Note to all, this is not a WoW rant.

Back in the early 90's, Blizzard had made its name with a little title called "WarCraft." It wasn't the first of the RTS genre, but it was one of the best to-date and showed great promise. It was complete out-of-the-box. Very few bugs, and none of those game-breaking.

Cut ahead a few years.

Blizzard broke the mold with Warcraft II, and are trying to do it again with their new sci-fi title, StarCraft. The hype for this game was unbelievable. People were climbing the WALLS in anticipation of this game. As its release date approached, Blizzard announced that release was being pushed back 6 months to deal with some "major issues." Alright. Release date approached again, and again Blizzard postponed the game. It began to look like vaporware, to be honest.

Then the game was released. I have to be honest, I have never seen so polished a game, not in all the years I've been playing games. In well over 20 patches, there has never been a game-breaking, OMGWTFBBQ horrifying bug found in that game. They delayed release... to bring us an actual -complete- game on release day. Oh, yes, there have been patches, but the contents of those patches have been minor bugfixes and balance-related issues, as well as anti-cheating measures of course.

After StarCraft I vowed never to be too put off by moving release dates. I tell myself, "Hey, at least the company cares about the quality of the product they're releasing." Take "Spore" for instance. Wil Wright must be itching to release almost as much as I, and many others, are itching to play his latest creation. That doesn't stop him from keeping a tight lid on the game until, in his view, it is -done-.

And to refute any lofty claims of Blizzard's production ethics, I would contend that the reason they release only "perfect" games is that they despise, and are terrible at, customer service. :lol: They just want to avoid having to support a bad release. Hehe.

I want to say to the OP...

Let us know how that big bug-free blockbuster title turns out, ON YOUR OWN.

@Psycluded,

Yep, there are a few of those type of developers out there, but very very few. Perhaps I should become a Blizzard and Valve customer only. :hmm: Sigh, if only they made Subsims. :lol:

To further this little challenge, here's what you'll need to make your very first game. At least, this is probably the easiest road you could take...

1. MS Visual Studio Express (C# at least)
2. XNA Game Development Studio (API and other such tools)
3. DirectX SDK (for the half-dozen or so tools that come with it)
4. A -lot- of time.

Armed with these 4 things, go make us a sub game. *grin* Oh, you wanted good 3D graphics? Well, you'll need Maya, 3D Studio MAX or another such modeling solution, as well as Photoshop and Illustrator. Oh, you can't draw? Sucks to be you. Math not your thing? Probably be a good idea to take a few classes anyway. Linear Algebra, Trig, basic Calculus and Numerical Analysis being pretty much required. Oh, and don't forget the trig- and calc-based physics classes. God, I don't even want to think about the physics involved in submarine motion, much less simulating sound behavior in water. *Edit* Which, I might add, Ubisoft did -very- well in both SH3 and SH4. Several times now the thermocline layer has saved my butt and allowed me to escape escorts while they depthcharge the location they heard me.

Psycluded,

Yeah, they did pretty good with the sound behavior in water in SH3 and SH4.

But, have you ever played Dangerous Waters? Now that game REALLY simulates sound behavior in water. :rock:

Gods, DW is insane.

Did I mention that I interviewed for a position at Sonalysts a while back? ;) When they called me I just about freaked out. Still haven't heard anything from them. *shrugs* You win some and lose some.

I really don’t believe it will turn out well, but if I bought a car…:oops:

I find it to be quite hilarious that, if I read between his lines correctly, the OP says that I don't have the right to complain about bugs in a game as long as I do not know how to make games myself. I surely understand how hard it is to become a programmer, but that is completely besides the point. My niece for example is studying medicine, and she will one day carry a lot of responsibility. If something goes awry and one of her patients (god forbid) should die, she can't possibly tell the family to stfu cause they never studied medicine.

But back to the actual topic. I have every right to be as unhappy as I want to be with a product I buy if it doesn't work the way it should. Surely it depends on how you voice/word your opinion and complaints, I'll agree there. But game programmers are nowhere near supernatural entities like the OP is trying to make them out to be. If I go grocery shopping, I expect the products to be in good quality, and I don't care who had a heck of a day at work to make sure of it. If I buy a car I want it to function like advertised, with all the advertised features and nifty little things inside working the way they are supposed to. If they don't, the retailer is going to have hell to pay for sure .. and in turn, the manufacturer will be a little on the receiving end of abuse too. It is the way it is, plain and simple.

I don't need to know who spent how many years in uni to get a degree on whatever and how hard it is .. I am aware of all that. And to get back to PC games .. if you put a bug ridden game out on the market, you better put on the flame retardent suit because slander will be coming your way, and (to a degree), rightfully so. And do we who report bugs and complain about the unfinished state of SH 4 not have a point? I believe we do have a point indeed because figuring out that this game should have been more polished before release isn't exactly rocket science.

Which brings me to one of the most fubar bugs I have ever seen in my 14+ years of gaming - the savegame bug in SH 4 covered elsewhere on this forum. It is gamebreaking, right now it discourages me to continue playing until it is addressed .. and apparently, it has been around since Silent Hunter 3. I am sorry to say so, but I don't need a degree in programming to find that fact alone outragious. To be quite honest, Ubi Soft has been going south since a few years now (anyone remember the bugged-beyond-belief coop mode in Splinter Cell 3?), and it seems with Silent Hunter 4 they have hit yet another low. I love the game when it works properly, but sadly that isn't the case all too often, and as a paying customer I really could care less how much it takes to create a game of this magnitude. The customers I deal with at work also do not care what it takes me to do my job properly, and demanding them to do so before allowing any sort of criticism is quite frankly elitist behaviour which doesn't sit too well with me.

To be fair mate, if it was any American built vehicle other than a Jeep Wrangler - I'd consider myself lucky I survived myself.

It doesn't simulate it that well, but still moderately well I admit.

After having the release date for Hidden and Dangerous moved back quarterly for a period of 2 years, neither am I :rotfl:

And if you read the Subsim Almanac 2007 you will find that it goes for the SilentHunter games too...man did the team work their ass off for us!!!

You got that right!!! :rock:

Agree...thats why in my posts where I have expressed my disappointment/frustration with SH4 in its current state, I have never blamed the devs. Ubi is the big gorilla beating on the backs of the devs and is to blame for rushing stuff to the market.

Im sure if it was up to the devs, they would have waited another year and added all sorts of goodies, had a good closed beta with members of this forum, and made sure the product worked. Question is where would the devs get the money to fund an extended development program?

Time and money..... are the fixed constraints here.

Some excellent, measured responses to an arrogant, presumptious OP. :up: