Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ENtek-IO
Imagine that, you buy the newest Porsche and they left out the Turbo loader, because they had to release it .!??
What kind of company ethics is this?
|
This car-software analogy has been repeated over and over, and IMO only shows that a person has no idea of software development. I do respect the anger and frustration of some of you if you are having problems with your favourite game, or computers in general. However, if you would decide to apply a car manufacturers strict engineering rules to a computer game, your game would either take decades (not years) to develop, or if you want to do it faster, lets say 2 years, it would have to look like it was made for the Z80. It just doesnt work like that, and yes, it's the customers fault, too. The high standards we are expecting from every game nowadays, can only achieved because programmers are encouraged to work much faster than they should. Some say this is the only way to move forward, though I expect it to change when the technology in general becomes more mature.
From the perspective of software development, I see absolutely nothing wrong with SH3. It is just a shame if you think of what would have been possible with this engine! Especially if you think how little time the team had, and still pulled it off.
Conclusion. If UBI has lost money with SH3, and would still decide to produce a sequel, the guy in charge would sooner or later have to go. It's sad but it's true.