Pot-Stirring Time

[kandrathe]

Re: first quote, This is for traditional waterfall software development techniques, but in a R.A.D. or prototyping environment (which is useful in an R&D/Experimental type setup) this is not so true (Yes there is less control at implementation, but, I just disagree with the 'diminishing to almost zero'). A lot of games seem to be developed following the experimental approach...

I will agree in as far as the rough content and minutia are concerned; those things that are changeable, and improvable right up to implementation, such as the quality of the graphics, animations, or music. I was thinking about design and structure -- or those things that define the product. For instance, you would not change DII into a first person game mid project without some tremendous rewrite of the underlying engine. Waterfall or RAD, at some point you must nail down the specifications, otherwise, your project just spins endlessly as all the various things that could be (as opposed to should be) done are explored. It has been my experience that RAD only works when the end product desired is clearly definable by at least someone related to the project. The "waterfall" vs "RAD" is also in many ways a smoke screen tossed out sometimes to chastise advocates of a particular methodology. The basic stucture of any creative act, from painting, to software, to having children is preparation, conception, creation, delivery, cleanup, and then maintain. There are variations on what each of those steps contain. You can do very small chunks iteratively and call it RAD, or Extreme, or do it in one fell swoop. The trend is the former, as it mitigates risk to identify trouble spots earlier. However, if a users requirements are ABCDEF & G -- it does little good to implement just A. Like building an airplane, the entire thing needs to be completed and proven air worthy before it is useful.

To the second; to me it seems odd that people spend an amazing amount of effort to research the quality of a 2 hour movie that they will pay $10 for, but when it comes to software they throw down $50, and seem to grab whatever has the hottest packaging. They have no idea if the software contains 5 hours or 100 hours of content. Movie reviews and critics seem to be an accepted part of the film industry, but when it comes to criticism of entertainment software, consumers seem careless. My guess is that we might both agree that there are not yet accepted venues for entertainment software reviews or criticism. Many are written by either the jaded, or the "avid gamer" which may not be accessible to the typical game consumer.

Your argument applies to any type of experiential entertainment. The movie trailer might look good, or you might have enjoyed a music artists prior album, but unless you experience the content you will not know until you have committed. Just as with music or movies there are also no solid predictors for quality. All actors, producers, or directors seem to fall victim to a flop here and there. For software now (and not just games), I wait until someone who's opinion I value confirms that it is worth investigating. I try to see it in action at a store or on a friends computer before commiting time or money and ask around to see if anyone has had either positive or negative experiences. I guess as an example what I'm trying to suggest is that one persons opinion, however prominent, or loudly spoken, is still only one persons opinion. The late Gene Siskel never seemed to like the movies that I did, while Roger Ebert and I have equivelent tastes. I might listen to Siskel's negative review (a dog is a dog is a dog), but I could never trust his positive reviews. An opinion en masse is something I would listen to, and I suspect any good marketing department or corporate CEO would as well.