Are delays really making it better?

[Inkidu]

So, oftentimes the go-to excuse made for games that fail to meet posted deadlines seems to be, "Well at least they're going to make it better." Well, I've rarely found this to be the case. Most people forget that they need an extension to meet development milestones. So it's often not "making it better" as much as, "need time to catch up".

Feeling this more often than not I have developed a habit of being very, very cautious of games with release dates given to at least the month of the current year. When that is delayed more than three or so months I've never found the end product to be better. In fact, I think it makes it worse. I tend to give games that have dates only within the year or season a slide.

So here's the discussion. Give examples of games that were better or good for being delayed, or that were worse for it.

I say it because Bioshock Infinite just got pushed, and I think it's already been pushed once before. It's making me very antsy.

 

[tippy2k2]

Delays are always polarizing: It's either a really really good thing or a really really bad thing...it seems rare that a delayed game gets an OK game out of the deal.

Examples
Bad: Duke Nukem. I doubt that I need to go into detail...
Good: Grand Theft Auto 4
Wild-card: Mass Effect 3

I can't really think of any other examples. I don't really keep track of release dates until the game is actually days out so I'm not going to be very useful in coming up with examples. The ones I wrote are the only ones I know off the top of my head...

Although now that I really think about it, I'm not sure if we can properly answer this. We don't get to play the game before it was delayed so for all we know: they took a turd and made it gold, it didn't do anything, or they tried to polish a turd. We really have no clue if delays helped.

 

[Catfood220]

So, oftentimes the go-to excuse made for games that fail to meet posted deadlines seems to be, "Well at least they're going to make it better." Well, I've rarely found this to be the case. Most people forget that they need an extension to meet development milestones. So it's often not "making it better" as much as, "need time to catch up".

Feeling this more often than not I have developed a habit of being very, very cautious of games with release dates given to at least the month of the current year. When that is delayed more than three or so months I've never found the end product to be better. In fact, I think it makes it worse. I tend to give games that have dates only within the year or season a slide.

So here's the discussion. Give examples of games that were better or good for being delayed, or that were worse for it.

I say it because Bioshock Infinite just got pushed, and I think it's already been pushed once before. It's making me very antsy.

Sometimes a game will get its release put back a couple of months so that it doesn't get forgotten about if it is released at the same time as a big name game. For example, a game that has a November release might have its release date changed so that it doesn't get crushed by the COD juggernaut.

 

[Inkidu]

I think Mass Effect 3 squeaked by my three-month buffer zone. I don't mean literally like you have to play it I mean games like Alpha Protocol. It was delayed for like four or five months. It was hotly anticipated and the end results were cult at best. It was supposed to be the espionage RPG, and maybe it's too easy picking on Obsidian, but it was hardly worth its delay.

Catfood220: Fair enough, but those usually aren't more than three months, and sometimes you can take four. I don't claim it to be exact.


Also, another thing to note and this is basically true. Games will never come out earlier than anticipated. I think that's where the "make it better time" lies, not in the push up, but in the getting it done exceptionally efficiently so they have time to tweak.

 

[loa]

How would that even be tangible?
We don't know how the game would've been if it was released now because, you know, it has been delayed.
Now unless you can somehow look into a magical parallel universe in which the game got released instead of delayed, there is about as much discussion value here as discussing how much money exactly is "lost" due to piracy.

 

[Armored Prayer]

The only game I can think right now that was made better through a delay was Gears 3.

Originally it was set to be released around April, but due to the 360 not having any major release for the holiday season it was push back to September. To make up for the major let down Epic released a public multiplayer beta to give fans a taste of the new game.

Thank god for all that because if it wasn't for the delay then there would be no beta, and no beta means no extra time to fix all the multiplayer issues addressed by all the feedback. It could of been been like Gears 2 all over again *shutters*

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Well... it hardly makes games worse...

Unless you count the case of FEAR 2. The pre-alpha engine that the game was running on was fucking perfect. You could feel the kinetic impact and the raw power from the gunfights much better than the retail version, where they changed it up a lot, and I ultimately think that's why FEAR 2 was more along the lines of a mediocre shooter, when it really could have been up in the big leagues.


This would have been a much better game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There's a sweet spot for games. Time enough for them to release a polished, feature-rich product without a ton of bugs or play issues, but not so long that the technology underpinning it has hopelessly aged.

 

[burningdragoon]

Give examples of games that were better or good for being delayed, or that were worse for it.

Since we only see the finished product, it's hard to argue a case for if it was actually better or worse because of it. Now assuming the delay is related to it not being done enough to release, then yes the specific delayed game will probably better than it would have been. The delays might be a sign of bigger issues, but it's not like a delay will turn a good game into a shit game. It will turn a shitty game into a less shitty game though.

(Most) people aren't saying delaying will make the game "better" but that it should be released when it's ready (enough).

 

[Zhukov]

If they're delaying the release then those in charge clearly feel that more work is needed.

I would prefer that developers/publishers take that time rather than release an incomplete product.

 

[Woodsey]

Infinite's not been pushed before, they just announced it's release date about 2 years before it was due to be released, which is ridiculous.

It depends on the delay, and more recently I've found myself being able to tell a good delay from a bad one from a capitalising-on-sales one.

 

[endtherapture]

In fact, I think it makes it worse.

How would it make the game worse?

Did you have the game at it's original release date to compare to the game on it's new release date?

That's just such a stupid thing to say I can't even

 

[Inkidu]

In fact, I think it makes it worse.

How would it make the game worse?

Did you have the game at it's original release date to compare to the game on it's new release date?

That's just such a stupid thing to say I can't even

Okay fine, not worse, but it sure doesn't feel like the delay made it better, so worse by proxy. Sheesh, someone needs to take a good crap.

 

[endtherapture]

In fact, I think it makes it worse.

How would it make the game worse?

Did you have the game at it's original release date to compare to the game on it's new release date?

That's just such a stupid thing to say I can't even

Okay fine, not worse, but it sure doesn't feel like the delay made it better, so worse by proxy. Sheesh, someone needs to take a good crap.

How can you know unless you've played the game before it was out? You have no idea of the state it was in - it could be buggy, incomplete animations, unbalanced, not all dialogue recorded etc.

 

[mental_looney]

It's kind of pointless to think that we have no idea what state the games were in when they were delayed, yes we have seen screen shots or a demo but those are not a good reflection of the state game as a whole, for example areas that are to be shown in a demo or a gameplay trailer will be cleaned up and made to look their best compared to other areas in the game as that's specifically what's being show and it's just a small faction.

It the games not done yet chances are a delay could make it better or if the game is in such a bad state the delay will only make it marginally better but still shit we will never be able to know.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Irrespective of whether or not a delay is so that a game can be further refined or simply brought up to the standard it was already supposed to be at, a delay can only ever improve a game. To reiterate, no game will ever be worse off for delays (with one-off exceptions).

Usually a postponement of a game's release date is made to give the developers time to fix things that aren't right, bug fix or make minor tweaks and alterations. I have no issue with Day 1 patches to address bugs that were discovered *after* the game went gold but *before* it was available to play. I applaud developers in fact that can turn it around that fast to allow gamers at release to have a better game (i'm in no way talking about DLC).

Game's that would have greatly benefited from delays...anything made by Obsidian and Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines. All were released prematurely and resulting in what can only be described as "flawed gems". Great games marred by many imperfections such as bugs, stripped out/half-baked/unfinished content or plot holes. KotOR2 and VTMB are great games, but badly let down.

The only game I can think of where delays harmed the title is Timeshift. The game was constantly revised from scratch each time. Each teaser trailer I watched was of a different game in a different game engine. The original game looked incredible, incorporating time tricks with physics based puzzles and objects, a cool story and fantastic looking FPS gameplay. The game we got? It was a boring, bland and basic shooter that, while incorporating the same time tricks as "Sands of Time" was so hard to pull off (and mostly unnecessary) that it served no purpose. The delays here, for whatever reason the corporates decided to screw it up like they did, only harmed the game each time.

Oh and speaking of delays...it would be remiss not to at least mention STALKER. Delayed plenty of times, for years in fact, it was still released with bugs. And despite the delays that only serve to kill any hype/excitement and the bugs still left in spite of the delays, it was a great game. Figure that one out!

 

[Phlakes]

When a delayed game ends up being bad, it's not because of the delay, it was delayed because it was bad and they couldn't manage to improve it.

But most of the time they just get delayed because they want to add some touches to it, like Bioshock Infinite. Finishing touches don't make a good game bad.

 

[Erana]

Does giving an extension on a midterm paper make the class perform any better?

Even though they're big, video games are still a creative process. And one with under half a century of developing processes of creation amidst constantly changing situations.

Some games work, some don't, and there's simply too many factors and too little information available to the consumer to see any consistency in the quality of games based on development time.

 

[EHKOS]

Well... it hardly makes games worse...

Unless you count the case of FEAR 2. The pre-alpha engine that the game was running on was fucking perfect. You could feel the kinetic impact and the raw power from the gunfights much better than the retail version, where they changed it up a lot, and I ultimately think that's why FEAR 2 was more along the lines of a mediocre shooter, when it really could have been up in the big leagues.


This would have been a much better game.

My gosh that's amazing.

 

[TehCookie]

So, oftentimes the go-to excuse made for games that fail to meet posted deadlines seems to be, "Well at least they're going to make it better." Well, I've rarely found this to be the case. Most people forget that they need an extension to meet development milestones. So it's often not "making it better" as much as, "need time to catch up".

You hear it as make it better than what they had planned, I say it as make it better than what they currently have. I'd rather have the devs hold back the release and try to work out as many bugs as possible than have them release a glitchy game and patch it later.