Rushed Vs Prolonged: The Game Development Dillemna

tl;dr


---------------------------------------------

Which do you prefer: A "rushed" game, or a "prolonged" game?

I prefer prolonged games over rushed since there's a real chance the game will become a classic once released. I don't buy a lot of games (when i do, I make sure I buy new), instead I wait for the games I truly want to play. I'm patient enough to wait years for a game to be released (Just so long as its in my lifetime, lol). I think DNF is an exception since gearbox was working with an outdated script from an old company. I'll worry about FFXIII Versus when the company developing it changes.

Like they always say "You can't rush perfection", but what happen to Duke Nukem was an exception.

I would like to mention Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines into this topic. It was the first game (or at least that's what I read on the web) to use the Source engine (Half-Life 2). It is hailed as a cult classic because it is simply an amazing FPS/RPG, but it was rushed.

The game was bugged to no end, the company didn't make it's profits and the studio completely abandoned the game.

It was so good though, that ex staff members from Activision worked on fixing the bugs, on their own free time. The community released patches to fix it all nearly.

What is my point?: Development time is not that important. A good game is a good game.

Me? I like rushed.

It's a lot easier for a development studio to create something amazing when they have the money and capabilities to both develop and publish the game (Blizzard anyone?). 90% of the time it's the publisher that wants the game rushed and when they have a schedule and budget set out by a third party, it's harder for a development studio to truly put their all into the games they create and come out with a jaw-dropping product. But then again, some development studios perform amazingly under pressure and can release the fantastic titles we know and love within a short period of time.

It doesn't take much to entertain a casual market and as of late, publishers (specifically EA) have been releasing cheaply made games that any casual-fag can pick up and be good at right off the bat. They're rushed, have minor re-playability and sub-par everything but the general population eats it up like an obese child eating a McDonald's Cheeseburger.

Sometimes games aren't prolonged for quality, they're prolonged because of monetary issues, which may lead the game to be of even worse quality. Neither is better, and right in the middle is what every studio and publisher should aim for.

I like my games well done. But to be honest I can see lots of problems for prolonged development. The biggest of which is the fact that the game industry evolves quite fast and games in development would be forced to cope up with the ever changing technology. The preference of the gamers change quite a lot too and of course that is a major course changing variable for any game. For games that plan to have their game cook in the development oven for morethan 4 years, the team should think years ahead of their time or else their game will look outdated upon release.

Rather have a finished game than a incomplete rushed out bag of crap.

I rather have a game that's held back till completion. That's why I love id Software so much. Sure, they take a while to crank their games out, but in the end, the final product was worth waiting for.