Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Darkstar]

Does Stardock count as big developer?
Their Elemental beta definitely does not match your criterias. Same for their overall 'stages of development'.
Each studio has its own workflow, its useless to try to fit whole industry into some canon.

Actually, Stardock did follow that development cycle, with GalCiv2. And GalCiv.

What Stardock did with Elemental is bring in the public DURING the production stage. In GC2, they brought in few early on, and slowly added customers to that as the development cycled through.

[Apolloin]

That huge wall talking about milestones(yes, I did read it all) seems to be directed at a recent FPS perspective. Lighting. Networking. Scripting. "Environments" associated with lighting, not levels or maps or anything.

I tried to make it general, but yeah - I did my most recent design work in an FPS environment, so that's what I know. I've also done Flight Sims and other assorted stuff as well, though - it's just that back then the Industry simply wasn't as organised. Nontheless you can break any game down to chunks that need to be completed in a set order by a set time.

Now, to classify DF by that, the closest that can be reached is that the Concept is never quite finished, but constantly evolving, the pre-production was Armok 1, Production is between-release development, and the released alphas are alpha compared to the then-current state of the Concept, or at least the properly extrapolated bits.

There are still major systems of gameplay that are in a rudimentary / unfinished state. Until you have everything in it cannot be Alpha. Cannot. Unless you stop using Industry standard phase names that don't apply to your development model. It's this that I seriously suggest we do.

Beta is when the Concept needs little further refinement, and thus the alphas will end, Release is when all of the original goals have been met and Toady starts to contemplate improvements to be added for the end of the second development cycle, renewing the ammount of work remaining for stage one.

Different cyles or different products? Because what you really OUGHT to do is draw a line under it and label a complete rework as a Second Game and iterative improvements as Upgrades.

In short, Toady's release cycle is what you get if you turn the standard procedural cycle into a multithreaded paralell one. Ironically, he manages to also change a team of hundreds into one man with occasinal collaboration with his brother, and the generally insider-only concept of major development into an open community-driven feedback system.

No, actually Toady is the one with the linear procedural cycles, because all his stuff is measured in man hours and he is that man. Nothing is being done in parallel and all of it is being done serially. One of the biggest parts of scheduling the production of a main stream game is managing the parallel nature of content production. By this I mean identifying the critical path and trying to ensure work done off the critical path doesn't become moot or redundant.

He inverted the structure, and it worked just as well with fewer developers. He found(ed) the future of video game design.

Wow, what a lot of FAPPITY FAPPITY noises that last line was. Balls, quite frankly. Toady's 'process' only works for single developer studios making niche indie games that don't have deadlines or huge content creation requirements. His system may well be the future of niche indie onemanband game design, but it is completely unsuited for commercial and main stream game production.

Let me be more blunt. No. This is the PAST of video game production. Bedroom coders died out in the 80's and Toady is a sort of 'firebreathing Coelacanth menacing with spikes of velociraptor' sort of creature. In other words he is awesome to behold, but what he is doing and the way he is doing it is not the future.

[Apolloin]

Software development is a known process.  There are improvements to the process being found and implemented over time, but most of the obvious ways of doing things have been tried, and many of the better methods have been found.  To the extent that different studios have their own take on the process, it is hardly ever fundamental differences in methodology.  This is why people can hop from one company to another and be doing useful things inside a couple days.

Alternatively, there is another reason studios might do things differently from tried and true software development methods, which is bad management.  It is far too common.

This is quite true, to which must be added management fads. I actually quite enjoyed SCRUM methodology and the Strike Team system, but they involve a lot of administrative overhead and rigidity that I don't think parsed well in the Games Industry.

In addition the Games Industry has a very mobile workforce which leads to incestuous business practices. A guy works as a Level Designer at Studio A and then takes a job as Senior Level Designer at Studio B and then moves on as a Senior or Lead Designer to Studio C. He picks up the ways that work and the ways that don't from each posting and carries them on to his next assignments. If one studio has a smart idea, then that idea tends to be disseminated quite quickly.

In addition large corporations like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo tend to own a lot of Studios which then communicate between each other. Innovations that work get shared around, and practices that are epic fail tend to get pointed and laughed at.

Why this doesn't work with Marketing never ceases to amaze me...

[MaDeR Levap]

Especially in alpha stage game. And yes, this term apply here (sorry Apolloin).

(cut wall of text)
Apologies, but I really think we need to change the way we think about Dwarf Fortress, an indie project that is, if anything, still in the Production phase.

My apologies, but I do not think DF is comparable to "normal", commercial productions. You even listed differences, admit that is different... and still try to force your definition of word where it not belong.

My take is simple: in different contexts, same words may have similiar, but not same, meanings. And I do not think that big productions have monopol to use or define word "alpha".

In world of small games (in sense of small team or even one-person team, like in DF case), there is no need to have so complicated life cycle. Simple game have alpha, beta, completed. And yes, anyone know meaning of these words in this context.

"Alpha" is not defined by big game companies. "Alpha" means very general thing (unfinished game in very early stage), that was used in very specific meaning by big companies. You have it backward and want to dictate meaning of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

TL;DR; Game produced by big company != DF. Life cycle of big game != life cycle of DF. Both lifecycles can use same words. You are in no position to dictate meaning or use of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

[qwertyuiopas]

This is senseless. If anything, he's done the exact opposite. A development house with multiple team members works in parallel; you have multiple people working on different things at the same time. Toady does the opposite; he's only one man, so the process isn't parallel at all. This isn't to say he should do it differently, but he's not doing whatever it is you just said.

Using the previously posted cycle:
A big team works at the same time towards a single milestone, and then moves on to the next. Toady seems to be working towards most of the milestones mentioned previously, all at the same time.


Wikipedia's cycle definition, however matches DF's so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Alpha

The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software.

(Emphasis added)
Usually: There are exceptions.
Ends: Features are usually still added during Alpha.

Code: [Select]

Pre-alpha refers to all activities performed during the software project [u]prior[/u] to testing.

Using these two definitions, we can say that DF simply went into an early alpha stage, since pre-alpha ended with the first public release, and there hasn't been a feature freeze yet, so it most certainly hasn't progressed past it.

Finally,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Impact_of_the_World-Wide_Web
states that the term "beta" is now much more general than before, so a precise definition will not apply to every single product, especially newer ones.

[Apolloin]

"Alpha" is not defined by big game companies. "Alpha" means very general thing (unfinished game in very early stage), that was used in very specific meaning by big companies. You have it backward and want to dictate meaning of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

You're being disingenuous. You know, for a fact, that Toady used the word Alpha in the context of game development, and it has been shown to you that he did so mistakenly. You have decided that if the accepted definition of the word doesn't match Toady's use of it then that means the definition of the word has to change. You're being a dogmatic fundamentalist.

By all means invent your own Development Cycle that you claim is better fitted to games outside the commercial sector and invent your own words to describe it's phases and then try to get them accepted as an Independent Games Industry standard. Don't use a term that I'm professionally familiar with in the wrong way and then berate me when I call you on that error. That's the kind of stuff that'll leave you stranded at the Children's Table during serious discussions with nobody taking you seriously.

NOW, I've already said that in my considered opinion the commercially accepted development cycle jargon needs redefining for Dwarf Fortress. That means having people who actually know something about Software Development puzzle out a proper system that actually works, it doesn't mean you hijacking terms and using them to mean whatever you feel like making them mean at the moment. That's the way that the Industry used to work when I joined it as a kid and trust me, it doesn't work well.

[Apolloin]

Wikipedia's cycle definition, however matches DF's so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Alpha

The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software.

(Emphasis added)
Usually: There are exceptions.
Ends: Features are usually still added during Alpha.

I believe that another gentleman who's also done some work in the Industry stated that most of the 'exceptions' to the phase definitions are exceptions due to poor management and application of standards. The feature freeze at the end of Alpha is there for a reason and that reason is important. When your features are still dynamic you cannot do the work that you are actually MEANT to do in beta, which is the finalisation of code - obviously, because the functionality is still in flux.

Does that mean that all projects achieve a complete feature freeze at the Alpha milestone? No - because many projects fail to adhere to standards. Sometimes the gamble works, in which case we say that non-rigid adherence to process leads to flexibility which improves the quality of the project. Sometimes the gamble fails, pushing back deadlines and failing milestones in which case we attribute the failure to meet expectations to poor management. Sometimes it causes the project to collapse and we just say Duke Nukem Forever.

By your argument one could say:

Insulation in residential dwellings should not include asbestos

should not: It could.
Ends: Companies can use asbestos when constructing residential dwellings

Using these two definitions, we can say that DF simply went into an early alpha stage, since pre-alpha ended with the first public release, and there hasn't been a feature freeze yet, so it most certainly hasn't progressed past it.

We could say that, but as large chunks of the functionality are incomplete, it would be more accurate to say that both the earlier versions and this version too are best defined as 'Pre-Alpha'. Pre-Alpha isn't a real phase, it's simply a term used to let those interacting with the product know that it hasn't reached the Alpha Milestone yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Impact_of_the_World-Wide_Web
states that the term "beta" is now much more general than before, so a precise definition will not apply to every single product, especially newer ones.

Ugh. The word Beta has now acquired a Marketing connotation whereby it is used to describe a phase of the endcycle where the users get to have an early peek at the project. Beta used to be a simple, single definition, phase but has now grown into several distinct flavours.

Starting with the Closed Beta - which is a version of the game distributed inhouse to be assessed by solely inhouse personnel. It might also be demoed, with supervision, to selected media outlets at this time. It is not to be left in unsupervised hands of any out of house persons at this time, however, as it is typically VERY fragile. Most of the testing is done using Closed Beta versions.

Open Restricted Beta - This is when the game is first released to a very small number of out of house persons, including members of the public. This is traditionally the LAST phase where serious testing is done on game features - although game balancing and networking experience is focused on in the next phase.

Open Beta - Everyone and their dog gets access now. Typically the product is about 99% complete, since a seriously broken game won't be shown to journalists, never mind the public. Mostly the focus is game balancing, exploits and network performance. The inevitable real bugs that are discovered at this point are always a MAJOR headache to a team that has virtually NO time left to fix them. For this reason, many bugs of the B class and down that discovered in Open Beta are left unfixed until post-release patching, to the great ire and confusion of those Open Beta participants who actually consider themselves bona fide testers.


It may be true that the definition of Beta is becoming fungible when Marketeers talk to Journalists or the Public, but when the Development Team is talking about Beta internally it is usually referring to the Closed Beta phase, since it often has little control over the point at which a Closed Beta turns Restricted Open or Open.

[MaDeR Levap]

By all means invent your own Development Cycle that you claim is better fitted to games outside the commercial sector and invent your own words to describe it's phases and then try to get them accepted as an Independent Games Industry standard.

I wanted to write long reply, but really, I do not like to waste my time with someone that put words in my mouth that was never spoken. Bye.

[Apolloin]

"Alpha" is not defined by big game companies. "Alpha" means very general thing (unfinished game in very early stage), that was used in very specific meaning by big companies. You have it backward and want to dictate meaning of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

TL;DR; Game produced by big company != DF. Life cycle of big game != life cycle of DF. Both lifecycles can use same words. You are in no position to dictate meaning or use of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

That is the portion of your reply that caused me to give you the answer you interpret as 'putting words in your mouth'. All I ever did was tell you what the words already in your mouth actually meant. Your stubborn insistence that you can use existing Industry Standards labels to mean anything you damn well want is wrong headed and causes precisely the kind of breaks in communication that labels are invented to avoid.

To break it down to really tiny and easily chewed pieces, so there's no additional misunderstandings:

TL;DR; Game produced by big company != DF. Life cycle of big game != life cycle of DF.

Agreed! I am one of the people pushing that idea in this thread.

Both lifecycles can use same words.

No. No. No. If you want to redefine your terms, then you'd be best labeling them differently. Why cause confusion? You're not working in a completely different field, after all. You're also not defining a state that is even close to the original definition. Alpha means functionality complete, but not content complete. Your definition of IndieAlpha means functionality not complete, content not complete. That's a polar opposite!

You are in no position to dictate meaning or use of word outside of context that you are familiar with.

But you are? Speak up now if you're an Indie Games Developer who recently had his definition of Alpha accepted at an Indie Dev conference, please! Again, I'm telling you what the fracking word means in Games Development, and suggesting that we either need to label DF as Pre-Alpha or else come up with a new definition that suits it's unique development cycle.

I wanted to write long reply, but really, I do not like to waste my time with someone that put words in my mouth that was never spoken. Bye.

And it would be a waste of time, mate, because you were wrong when you started, you're wrong now and you'll BE wrong until you pull your head out of the sand and recognise your error. Frankly, I suspect you're far too emotionally invested in your opinion to be persuaded at this point anyway, so all you're doing by storming off in a huff is saving both of us the trouble of more writing. My keyboard calluses are very grateful.

[Boingboingsplat]

Question: Does whether or not the game is in "alpha" have anything to do with the content of this thread.

I agree with the face that DF being in alpha doesn't mean it can be used as an excuse for bugs. But, I do think there are other excuses for bugs. Like, for example, there will always be bugs in a public release. Especially before they're all found and worked on. That's why we're here right now. To play the game and find bugs.

[Blackburn]

Agreed! I am one of the people pushing that idea in this thread.

No, all you've pushed is your arrogance upon us by snootily nagging people for using terms in ways you don't believe to be correct.

[nil]

Question: Does whether or not the game is in "alpha" have anything to do with the content of this thread.

I agree with the face that DF being in alpha doesn't mean it can be used as an excuse for bugs. But, I do think there are other excuses for bugs. Like, for example, there will always be bugs in a public release. Especially before they're all found and worked on. That's why we're here right now. To play the game and find bugs.

Well, not just alpha, but a release that was released earlier than the developer originally intended, because of popular demand.  The community wanted the new version as soon as possible and got it good and hard.

[Naros]

This is it, pretty much. Every version of every game has a lot of bugs in it, that's what patches are for. It's even worse when there is no official testing team to try and find all of them before it's released to the public(as developers are likely to miss a lot due to unexepected playstyles).

In Soviet Russia, bug testing team is YOU! *unsure*

[G-Flex]

This is senseless. If anything, he's done the exact opposite. A development house with multiple team members works in parallel; you have multiple people working on different things at the same time. Toady does the opposite; he's only one man, so the process isn't parallel at all. This isn't to say he should do it differently, but he's not doing whatever it is you just said.

Using the previously posted cycle:
A big team works at the same time towards a single milestone, and then moves on to the next. Toady seems to be working towards most of the milestones mentioned previously, all at the same time.

I sincerely doubt that's how most commercial game development works. In team-based game development, different things will be worked on in parallel because that's the entire point of having multiple people who are skilled at different things.

[MaDeR Levap]

Heeere we go again...

Your stubborn insistence that you can use existing Industry Standards labels to mean anything you damn well want is wrong headed and causes precisely the kind of breaks in communication that labels are invented to avoid.

Concept of "alpha" predates "Industry Standards labels" and whole "pre-alpha, alpha, closed/open/whatever beta" and other definitions what was created to fulfill needs of Big Gaming Companies.

You cannot insist that borrowed word for specific use and reason is now One True Meaning of "alpha".

Alpha means functionality complete, but not content complete. Your definition of IndieAlpha means functionality not complete, content not complete.

Funny how different can it be. I would say exactly same thing, except instead of "Alpha" in your sentence would be "CorporateAlpha", and instead of "IndieAlpha" would be just "Alpha". I do not think this difference of thought between us can be resolved.

Speak up now if you're an Indie Games Developer who recently had his definition of Alpha accepted at an Indie Dev conference, please!

No, I am not an indie developer. I just believe dictionary and Wikipedia definition over your claims.

it's unique development cycle.

This is not an "unique development cycle". There was time when this was common development cycle. DF uses it with one big difference (using internet as method to test/get feedback on early stage of development). And guess how was called certain point of its lifecycle, where DF is currently.