One person's perspective on the development life cycle

A chicken and a pig are walking down the street. The chicken says to the pig "Hey pig, i am thinking we should a restaurant!"
Pig looks back tot he chicken and says "Oh yeah? What would we call it?"
The chicken thinks for a minute then says "How about Bacon and Eggs?"
The pig thinks for a minute then shakes his head "Eh, no thanks... "
"Aww how come?" the chicken exclaims
"Well..." the pig says. "With a name like that...you'd only be involved - but i would be commited!"

^ Old joke told in agile courses.

So I wont expand upon Tahru's post too much except to say that yes, a lot of people think that things are developed in a fashion much more attuned to Waterfall / Watershed development methodology. In reality, this IS how a lot of games in the industry are developed. So if you have friends in the industry who say that waterfall is a standard methodology in the industry they are partially correct. It tends to be the method that AAA publisher driven development houses do things. And I can tell you from first hand experience... It sucks. it sucks like...a lot, a lot.

It is also true the way portalarium is developing things now is not common. Agile has grown more relevant in the gaming industry but is by no means a standard yet. And furthermore the process that the portalarium team has used is actually more inline to some of the earliest and most core principles of Agile/Scrum.

Everyone in the industry knows that port's approach is not the way games are typically made.. There are a lot of things they are doing that arent done in other games or in traditional AAA shops in the industry.

• Allowing the player to play the product in its very earliest state - almost unheard of. Usually the M/O is to put out directed press aligned videos that usually wont be representative of the game play.
• Engaging on a social level with fans on a day to day basis. - Something we're taught not to do in the industry
• Posting your priritized schedule and roadmap for players to see from day 1 of development - its been done, but isnt common. Usually the MO is to just hype the game via marketeers and only announce any specifics at all until near release (so the fans wont get a chance to know what got dropped and what got added)
• Revealing themselves and playing actively with the fans - almost unheard of. typically your "in game" personia that you play as regularly and your "company personia" are specifically detached and you never reveal yourself to the fans when youre just playing casually.
• Open development allowing fans to chime in on direction of certain decisions - its happened, but in the AAA world almost always looked down upon.

The list goes on and on. The point is that at the end of the day they set out from Day 1 to CHANGE the way games were made.. not go lockstep into the same thinking that has doomed so many in this industry so far.

And if you think that developing a game like this can be done in two years.... You're fooling yourself. The only game i know of with a similar online component that was developed within two years was ultima online. Ultima online was deployed in an incredibly barebones fashion, had no story or quests, no housing no mounts no boats (all that came in second age and beyond) and it was really just a bland virtual world to start off in. All other games from single player rpgs to mmos have taken a total of 5-10 years to develop depending on the game. The difference is you didnt hear about it until maybe a year or two before they were out... they'd been in alpha development YEARS before that! Here in SotA we're seeing every single building block as they are being made.

And to be frank with you the "Whens it gonna be done?!" folks who think this stuff can be done easily or in a few years is WHY the AAA world usually tries to lock that information away. Because that reaction is inevitable so they keep it locked up until its almost all the way through proof of concept and alpha. Portalarium KNEW this going into that project, i wouldnt doubt if they were scared out of their wits on whether to take the plunge when pitching kickstarter at all, and they did it anyway knowing full well that by pulling back to curtain they were putting themselves at risk to those who would inevitably kermit flail about one thing or the other not being done fast enough.

Discussing a change in development methodology this far in the game is silly. Demanding they split methodologies for one part of the game as opposed to another, wont work...that isnt how this works. I completely agree with @HoustonDragon that any other development comparison is "Like comparing apples to kumquats" =p

Basically this game's going to be a game that'll be in development forever. As soon as EP1 finishes theyll shift over to additional stuff and be moving towards EP2. Once they finish EP5 theyll structure out what EP6 is and beyond. The reality is you can do one of two things at this point:

• Wait until the game is at the point YOU want it to be and then play (EP1 completion? final wipe? EP5 completion? up to you) but know that even then when you dive in there's still going to be something else in development.
• You can troll, complain here, sell off your account, argue with folks... whatever it is you want to do. It may make you feel a little better but it isnt going to change much else (Except where the last bullet above applies) and certainly are not going to change the development methodology

So I for one find @Tahru's post above insightful. I always like discussing development methodologies (because in a stone cold geek and work too much) but to anyone who wants to flip tables about the schedule or methodology or whatever I suggest we all just relax and gain some perspective. The game will be great, I'm already living in it and loving it personally. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but just remember that portalarium chose to develop the way they did FOR us and BECAUSE of us... NOT in SPITE of us like so many seem to try to imply.

Alright, im out folks. You can resume flailing. Cool post @Tahru!

 

This itself is the sole reason why I'm willing to help them fund the project through pledges and add-ons store.

In software industries, the program manager or software engineer work with customers to define requirements. Mostly to cover their asses and make sure they don't end up putting themselves into the position that they can't deliver what they promise. It is also for their protection in case the customers want more stuff outside the scope, which they can either say no or charge more.

Things are different with game industries. Even if the developers just stick to their original plan and complete all the requirements then call it a day, there is a chance that no one will buy their games, which are more damaging than not sticking to the original goals. Imagine if GabeN decided to release Half-Life 1 before the last iteration or if CD Projeckt decided to keep Witcher 1 as the top view game, or Borderland is not changed to cell shade graphic last minute; none of these games would not make it this far. Did you ever see anyone bitching about CD Projeckt "broke their promise" by converting the game into 3rd person view?

Coding things or add assets to the game just for the sake of "completing the tasks" won't be good enough. The game play itself has to go through testers, gather feedback, and have to revamp if needed. If the fixed deadline coming up, then the developers will have to decide which features stay, which will be postponed, and which will be scrapped if they want to meet the deadline.

 

This is more like SAND CASTLE DEVELOPMENT.
They create a "base" shape (add in the base systems without much refinement)
Then they carve out the intricate details. (tweak/add/balance/scrap)

Some people cant even grasp how a game is made or a project is designed.
Its like trying to explain algebra to a 1st grader. They just don't get it.

Some just don't realize that you cant implement story or quests without having ALL the other systems in place.
Unless you just want a walking simulator with only talking quests and no combat what so ever.
I mean you cant lay out quests without the art assests or the combat balance or the monsters.
How would they scale it? what monsters do you kill for what quest? how many?
So many things depend on the base systems to be there.
It would be REALLY wasting time to do the story/quests 1st when you would have to go back and redo them all over again.

And in the meantime while trying to create the base systems they have released filler content to keep people semi occupied.
Theres really no other way to go about it.
To say other wise makes yourself seem really ignorant.

 

I have previously argued in more detail in will maintain that they in fact are not transparent at all, as their transparency is merely with meaningless things. They could have written in the kickstarter that they are in this for the long haul, that they have no clue when to expect episode once but instead they chose to give a date, that many of us soon correctly argued was not realistic. If we can see that things they say are not realistic, why can't industry veterans? Or were they willfully raising impossible expectations for the lack of gaining additional funding which could only be considered unethical, deceitful and borderline scammy?

There is however something their "transparency" has achieved. This ought to be the worst managed project I have ever seen.

Also I do not see how a publisher could add to the drama: Senior team members insulting people leaving steam reviews is hard to beat. There is unprofessional conduct in many ways here, and insulting paying customers would get people fired in the vast majority of companies. Some publishers might pull the plug entirely after witnessing that as well.

 

The issue is not with changing your concept, it is with a funding campaign full of stupid ideas (especially with regard to pledge rewards) and lacking core concepts. If you bait someone into spending money, lets say by providing a timeline you can not even come close to fulfill, or by creating conflicting requirements by the design you propose, of course those customers won't be happy. The clean way of someone convinced in their success would be to offer people a refund. If indeed the changes made were for the better there would be no need for anyone to accept that refund ;-). I guess Portalarium is not convinced enough to do this.

 

That's the thing about the iterative process of designing a video game, you don't know until you try.

I'm all for questioning how they're funding their game, but coming in with a skewed perception of how the industry works for designing a game is not the way to approach things.

Also, you took a risk by investing in a Kickstarter project. The fault is on you and you'll know better than to trust the people that have wronged you in the future... if the backlash is powerful enough, those people will never work in the industry ever again. That's normally how funding games work. If you screw up, you hardly ever get a second chance.

Transparency is a relative term, here. Whenever or not you believe they're being as transparent as they should be, most publishers and developers don't want to show you because it can get ugly and messy. You're frustrated because they're "translucent" when most are opaque.

Because, like I mentioned on a previous post, the industry is very young and optimistic. They're trying to sell you the "idea" of the game; they're pitching the game to you like you were a publisher and not necessarily a customer. They're not lying to you, you're just talking directly to the designers who are very excited about their project as opposed to some PR guy at a press conference. You should look into "Peter Molyneux" for further insight on the matter; that guy's #1 when it comes to building expectations.

Even if you see an interview of a game designer about some game, most of what he's allowed to say is dictated by a publisher; because if they screw up, the publisher gets less profits long term.

Now, why are industry veterans adding new houses, pianos, clothing and pets into the online store when they should be focusing all of their attention on meat of the game, that's another story to which I really have no answer to.

While I'm not pretending to know what's going on behind Portalarium's doors but you should see what it's like inside a development studio. There's often a lot of blood, tears and a lot of confusion. It's not all happy "lets make dragons!". Portalarium is saving a lot of trouble by avoiding a publisher.

Here's how bad it can get: Gas Powered Games.

I've been to Ubisoft and Gameloft, I've talked to coworkers who worked for Bioware and Eidos ( Did I mention that I live in Montreal? ). What I'm seeing from Portalarium is nothing new.

Activision, EA and Infinity Ward and Sony Online Entertainment sold off by Sony.... this stuff goes on and on.

 

Sorry but that is to simplistic. There were a number of suggestions where early on backers like me pointed out vital flaws in the basic design just for them to one year later suddenly changing them in exactly the way people (even during kickstarter) argued things should be done. If a casual observer can see those things anyone with a full time job and half a brain should too. Changing things that don't work is one thing but starting out with design choices that are leading to issues obvious to anyone thinking consequences through for 2-3 hours means that those people should indeed not work in that capacity.

The industry is 40 years old, which is ages old in high-tech. I will have the same expectations of any product sold and react in the same way when it does not live up to the promises made. I do not care about the hype and sales pitches .

Which is what people like me pointed out as early as 2 years ago. Much to the protest of everyone back then.

Recently the company behind the biggest European kickstarter went bankrupt. Reading the report about the how and why seems somehow strangely familiar:

https://medium.com/kickstarter/how-...s-with-nearly-nothing-85c0abe4a6cb#.5jvb74yrx

Let me quote one conclusion in particular (I could have chosen many others):
"Communications from the project creators to backers were, on the whole, regular and fairly honest. However, they were also incomplete, overconfident, and reflected a dangerous lack of self-awareness of the problems the company was making for itself."

My main point: They way they operate is a recipe for disaster in ANY industry. If that indeed is how the rest of that industry works its a miracle so many companies are doing alright.

 

Actually....who ever thinks that making a game requires everything to be finished before you can work on quests and storyline is really over simplifying it.

Most(almost all) work on both and adapt the "game" to work with what they are doing in the quest/world/stories.....that way they can come up with a coherent product. It's not finish A then you can start working on B....

The unfortunate thing about this thread is that it is a precursor to something else.

 

Michael Church knows what's up https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/why-agile-and-especially-scrum-are-terrible/

 

That may be how some are doing it, but that's not how port is doing it.
And Port has put in the basic quest system from which to build off of, they have been working on all things, but not focusing.
What I said is the way, weather or not you approve doesn't really matter.

Because its filler content that was generaly easy to make, gain profit, quite a lot of people were begging for it, and most tied into larger systems.

I garentee if they had flipped focus to what some are asking for they would STILL BE COMPLAINING, because the other half was missing.

This is a 3-4 year dev cycle, its defies common sense to think other wise.


HERE is my question:

Did anyone here Alpha/Beta Test Ultima 4-7 or UO?

 

Thanks for telling me that my opinion etc just doesn't really matter. I guess we will see in the end, something tells me this will be telling.


PoT's are a big reason we are where we are now, no matter how many want to deny it.

 

To be fair, whether or not you approve of him not approving is equally as unimportant. Ultimately, the decisions will be made by the development team, and we'll see the final result. I do trust them to want to make an enjoyable game, but there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism where the situation is warranted.

Also, Ultima 7 and UO (as examples) were produced under the purview of EA, so were subject to entirely different demands by corporate ownership. In the case of SotA, crowdfunding and Early Access has opened the doors to more open discussion and debate about the development process that would normally be hidden behind closed doors. That was Portalarium's decision to make, so have faith that they will handle the good with the bad.

 

And look im not saying that Port is god or anything. But some don't seem to understand the multi faceted side of dev these guys are doing.
Is the decision to do it the way they are doing it the best way to "crunch" out a game? Not really.
But they felt that going the "give access as soon as possible" approach is what the players wanted.
that means updates and slower progression as to get content to the players asap.

That's what im saying. Ive been trying to help these guys understand the method and reasoning behind why port has gone about doing what they have.

 

For the record, I think I am quite aware of the many decisions they have made over the years. I have been here from the start and was a very avid supporter for a long time. Unfortunately I am not as happy with the direction they ended up going and I'm expressing exactly what I think they did wrong here.

 

The problem is, we've been in a circular argument with a lot of assumptions on all sides on how/what the development team has been thinking, which what led to a lot of the frustrations. Personally, I'm less for pushing for a rapid deployment, but am happy to see more concrete scheduling actually taking place. The only way to combat the negative perception that exists on Steam and other places is to actually start providing polished content to be reviewed accurately.

 

too little too late?

PoTs did take a chunk of dev, but I feel they are something that does set the game apart from some others, and I guess the devs did as well.

 

That was a really interesting article to read, thank you for sharing it! Completely independent of anything to do with SotA or your thoughts, I recommend everyone read it. I might have to put that in my back pocket for a good case study write-up.

Unseen

 

Be careful. At least one loyal kickstarter backer has been banned over pointing this out. If you want the details just pm me.

 

Already posted this above ;-)

 

Why? You give the cat food and if the cat does not eat it will die?