SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 11-18-08, 07:12 AM

How can a company smaller than even a small game developement group and with just one lead programmer create something that outclasses products created with bigger staff and financial support? Answer: taking the time it needs, and being more clever and more dedicated than others. even the first SB (1 or Gold edition) still is superior to what we have in other tank games, and that title was a game developement for sure.

When you have flown "Falcon 4", you are no longer satisfied with flying the old "Jetfighter" games. Especially when they are broken. When you know SBP1, you will not be satisfied with M1TP2 anymore.

I certainly do not expect SF do beat SBP, it seems there is also too much professional insider knowledge enagged in SBP. But I can use SBP as a guideline on the basics a tanksim must fulfill to be a tanksim. I can compare the AI system. The way unit formation works. the importance of scripting versus flexible calculated responses. All that is no stuff exlusively for military simulators, but plays a role in dedicated game-simulators as well. And I can use my usual game standards for quality control that I already fought for when they released Sub Command and Dangerous Waters - both with some considerable flaws that they took over a year to fix (or not). That obvious and known bugs do not allow a game to be released, is one such demand, for example, and it makes perfect sense.

So, if your tanksim cannot jump over the hurdle set up by SBP, at least make it climb over it in a reasonable ammount of time, then,

and eventually it gets my approval, taking into account it's different market focus. But when it head-on runs into it and brakes it down and then does not continue to run, don't expect my applaus.

So in a way you are right: I am not too flexible indeed in what I consider as basic elements of defining "quality". Many people are very flexible here, means: very forgiving, compromising quality that way. Thats why the market quality level is as mediocre as it is: business sees that it gets away with not doing better. So, people get what they deserve, and quality software since years becomes more and more rare, and more and more often games have been rushed out too early, being sold in a broken state months before completion. It pays off for producers.

11-18-08, 07:12 AM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,456 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	How can a company smaller than even a small game developement group and with just one lead programmer create something that outclasses products created with bigger staff and financial support? Answer: taking the time it needs, and being more clever and more dedicated than others. even the first SB (1 or Gold edition) still is superior to what we have in other tank games, and that title was a game developement for sure. When you have flown "Falcon 4", you are no longer satisfied with flying the old "Jetfighter" games. Especially when they are broken. When you know SBP1, you will not be satisfied with M1TP2 anymore. I certainly do not expect SF do beat SBP, it seems there is also too much professional insider knowledge enagged in SBP. But I can use SBP as a guideline on the basics a tanksim must fulfill to be a tanksim. I can compare the AI system. The way unit formation works. the importance of scripting versus flexible calculated responses. All that is no stuff exlusively for military simulators, but plays a role in dedicated game-simulators as well. And I can use my usual game standards for quality control that I already fought for when they released Sub Command and Dangerous Waters - both with some considerable flaws that they took over a year to fix (or not). That obvious and known bugs do not allow a game to be released, is one such demand, for example, and it makes perfect sense. So, if your tanksim cannot jump over the hurdle set up by SBP, at least make it climb over it in a reasonable ammount of time, then, and eventually it gets my approval, taking into account it's different market focus. But when it head-on runs into it and brakes it down and then does not continue to run, don't expect my applaus. So in a way you are right: I am not too flexible indeed in what I consider as basic elements of defining "quality". Many people are very flexible here, means: very forgiving, compromising quality that way. Thats why the market quality level is as mediocre as it is: business sees that it gets away with not doing better. So, people get what they deserve, and quality software since years becomes more and more rare, and more and more often games have been rushed out too early, being sold in a broken state months before completion. It pays off for producers. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-18-08 at 07:23 AM.