{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/27/2015 9:59:16 PM
1
Please learn how games are developed as well as the structure of large game studios, then please provide all-encompassing, irrefutable evidence of this because "geometry assets were there" isn't enough.
How long do you think map development takes in comparison to coding all the weapons, all the systems, every quest or bounty, and then debugging and polishing it all? Not quite as long, huh? Don't you think they'd have extra time to work on some other stuff since this is a big studio we're talking about and they don't just have one team responsible for every map in both PvE and PvP?
Let me also give you a little problem to solve to tell if you understand the process here; I'm gonna list two options and I want you to tell me which is better and why. Option 1 is that after they finish developing the base game map, they stop there and leave the map as is. Option 2 is that as the coding side of things gets everything in the base game put together and some side teams start work on the DLC, they try to shove as many extra map assets as possible into the file before the game goes into Alpha and Beta. As information is gotten back from the alpha and beta, they work on the main part of the map some more while possibly trying to sneak in a little bit of extra work on the stuff that isn't in the base game, leaving some of that extra stuff in the map but unfinished. I'm not going to go into specifics about what the biggest difference in execution of these two plans is, because whether or not you have the foresight to think about it from an efficiency standpoint is the purpose of this question. That's the only hint you'll get.
Also, I'll just leave this out there; if you think Option 2 is better, you're supporting Bungie's decisions in making the game. Better come up with a pretty good explanation as to why Option 1 is better if you want to be stubborn about this.
English
-
lol "I choose not to believe obvious facts, therefore you don't know how games are made." You have no idea what I do or don't know. You're inferring I don't because you think it undermines my argument. That's called an ad-hominem remark. Google it. Also, your proposed situation is illogical. First, for obviously being a loaded question. Second, for implying the only possible options are those proposed. And third, obfuscation. Your proposal is a convenient assumption not based on facts (obvious because other developers generally don't do this, and when they do, the backlash is swift and decisive, unlike Destiny where too many denialists try to justify bad practices). Not to mention, you contradict yourself, attempting to argue that content wasn't present in the game before release, then attempting to justify content being present in the game by trying to argue that coding/balancing weapons takes longer than map design, which isn't true at all. Evidence of this is the fact that every month or two, a patch is released that re-balances weapons. Not to mention the entire itemization system is overhauled within the very short timespan of a few months between each successive content release. So this concept of coding and testing weapons being an excuse for not releasing existing content until a later date for a price just doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. You also mention "coding quests" as part of the excuse for not releasing content, when those quests merely re-used existing playspaces in most instances. With the geometry out of the way, setting event triggers and scripts is actually pretty trivial in any game engine if you have any idea of what you're doing. This, of course, all leads to the safe assumption that [b]you[/b] are the one who actually doesn't understand game design. The only thing left is testing, really. So your argument is that taking an extra couple months to test finished content is justification for charging $20 for it... Content was shown and marketed 2 years ago that was only released months ago. This includes upcoming content as well. Content was also in the game over a year before it was released (at a price, no less). The overall content of the game was also quite obviously made with this exact business model in mind. A very different game than the one that was released is what was sold and marketed to us (yourself included) before launch. It is blatantly obvious that the business model for this game was to release an incomplete product, and then re-sell existing content later at a premium to any sucker willing to fork over the cash. You can deny facts, accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and parrot Bungie's excuses all you want. But it doesn't change the overall situation. I'm slightly sympathetic toward Bungie as I know it isn't 100% their fault. Activision has a large part to play (that contract having a firm grip on Bungie's testicles, as it were). But at the end of the day, Bungie agreed to it and Bungie executed it. I have to hand it to them though... withholding the content for a few months instead of making it day-1 DLC is truly a slick way to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses. And getting them to pay more than the price of the average DLC to boot... tsk tsk.
